Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34016069›Full record

ArticleBMC nephrology2021

Patient perspectives of target weight management and ultrafiltration in haemodialysis: a multi-center survey.

David Keane, Megan Glyde, Indranil Dasgupta, Claire Gardiner, Elizabeth Lindley, Sandip Mitra, Nicholas Palmer, Louise Dye, Mark Wright, Ed Sutherland

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nephrology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

David KeaneRenal Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK. david.keane@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0002-4744-4106
Megan GlydeSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Indranil DasguptaUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Claire GardinerDietetics, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Elizabeth LindleyRenal Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Sandip MitraManchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Nicholas PalmerKidney Care UK, Alton, UK.
Louise DyeSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Mark WrightRenal Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Ed SutherlandSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
University of Leeds · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBKidney Care UK · GBLeeds Beckett University · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecisions around planned ultrafiltration volumes are the only part of the haemodialysis prescription decided upon at every session. Removing too much fluid or too little is associated with both acute symptoms and long-term outcomes. The degree to which patients engage with or influence decision-making is not clear. We explored patient perspectives of prescribing ultrafiltration volumes, their understanding of the process and engagement with it.

methodsA questionnaire developed for this study was administered to 1077 patients across 10 UK Renal Units. Factor analysis reduced the dataset into factors representing common themes. Relationships between survey results and factors were investigated using regression models. ANCOVA was used to explore differences between Renal Units.

resultsPatients generally felt in control of their fluid management and that they were given the final say on planned ultrafiltration volumes. Around half of the respondents reported they take an active role in their treatment. However, respondents were largely unable to relate signs and symptoms to fluid management practice and a third said they would not report common signs and symptoms to clinicians. A fifth of patients reported not to know how ultrafiltration volumes were calculated. Patients responded positively to questions relating to healthcare staff, though with significant variation between units, highlighting differences in perception of care.

conclusionsDespite a lack of formal acknowledgement in fluid management protocols, patients have significant involvement in decisions regarding fluid removal during dialysis. Furthermore, substantial gaps remain in patient knowledge and engagement. Formalizing the role of patients in these decisions, including patient education, may improve prescription and achievement of target weights.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHemodiafiltrationPatient ParticipationAdultAgedFemaleHumansKidney Failure, ChronicMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicRenal DialysisSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomWeight LossHaemodialysisHealth surveysPatient knowledgePatient participationTarget weightUltrafiltration

Identifiers

PMID34016069
PMCPMC8138996
OpenAlexW3134806022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.