ArticleJournal of renal care2022
The development of the Western Australian Haemodialysis Vascular Access Complexity instrument.
Article in Journal of renal care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The development of the Western Australian Haemodialysis Vascular Access Complexity instrument.Journal of renal care · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Western Australian Haemodialysis Vascular Access Classification instrument was developed to classify the cannulation complexity of the arteriovenous fistula or arteriovenous graft as simple, challenging, or complex. Although the instrument was developed by experts in haemodialysis nursing, the instrument had not undergone formal validity or reliability testing.
objectivesEvaluate the Western Australian Haemodialysis Vascular Access Classification instrument for content validity, interrater and test-retest reliability.
designProspective cohort study.
participantsContent validity was assessed by haemodialysis nursing experts (n = 8). The reliability testing occurred in one in-centre and one satellite haemodialysis unit in Western Australia from September to November 2019. Reliability testing was performed by 38 haemodialysis nurses in 67 patients receiving haemodialysis and 247 episodes of cannulation. MEASUREMENTS: Interrater and test-retest reliability assessment was conducted using κ, adjusted κ, Bland-Altman plots, intraclass correlation coefficient and Pearson's correlation coefficient.
resultsThe final version of the instrument (n = 20 items) had individual item-level content validity indices ranging from 0.625 to 1.00 with a scale-level content validity index of 0.89. For both interrater (n = 172 pairs) and test-retest (n = 101 pairs), most individual variables had excellent adjusted κ (n = 33 variables), some fair to good agreement (n = 6 variables) and one variable with poor agreement. The classification of simple, challenging and complex demonstrated adjusted κ of fair to good, to excellent agreement for interrater reliability with lower levels of agreement for test-retest reliability.
conclusionsThis instrument may be used to match a competency-assessed nurse to perform the cannulation thereby minimising the risk of missed cannulation and trauma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.