Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35304391›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2022

Results of a pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial exploring the use of an electronic patient-reported outcome measure in the management of UK patients with advanced chronic kidney disease.

Derek Kyte, Nicola Anderson, Jon Bishop, Andrew Bissell, Elizabeth Brettell, Melanie Calvert, Marie Chadburn, Paul Cockwell, Mary Dutton, Helen Eddington and 11 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. 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

21 authors.

Derek KyteSchool of Applied Health & Community, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK d.kyte@worc.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7679-6741
Nicola AndersonCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Jon BishopBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit (BCTU), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Andrew BissellPatient Advisory Group, Centre for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Elizabeth BrettellBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit (BCTU), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Melanie CalvertCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1856-837X
Marie ChadburnBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit (BCTU), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0635-6852
Paul CockwellUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Mary DuttonUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Helen EddingtonUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Elliot ForsterUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Gabby HadleyUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Natalie J IvesBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit (BCTU), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Louise J JacksonHealth Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8492-0020
Sonia O'BrienPatient Advisory Group, Centre for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Gary PricePatient Advisory Group, Centre for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Keeley SharpePatient Advisory Group, Centre for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Stephanie StringerUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Rav VerdiPatient Advisory Group, Centre for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Judi WatersPatient Advisory Group, Centre for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Adrian WilcocksonBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit (BCTU), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe use of routine remote follow-up of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasing exponentially. It has been suggested that online electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) could be used in parallel, to facilitate real-time symptom monitoring aimed at improving outcomes. We tested the feasibility of this approach in a pilot trial of ePROM symptom monitoring versus usual care in patients with advanced CKD not on dialysis.

designA 12-month, parallel, pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) and qualitative substudy. SETTING AND

participantsQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, UK. Adult patients with advanced CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥6 and ≤15 mL/min/1.73 m

interventionMonthly online ePROM symptom reporting, including automated feedback of tailored self-management advice and triggered clinical notifications in the advent of severe symptoms. Real-time ePROM data were made available to the clinical team via the electronic medical record. OUTCOMES: Feasibility (recruitment and retention rates, and acceptability/adherence to the ePROM intervention). Health-related quality of life, clinical data (eg, measures of kidney function, kidney failure, hospitalisation, death) and healthcare utilisation.

results52 patients were randomised (31% of approached). Case report form returns were high (99.5%), as was retention (96%). Overall, 73% of expected ePROM questionnaires were received. Intervention adherence was high beyond 90 days (74%) and 180 days (65%); but dropped beyond 270 days (46%). Qualitative interviews supported proof of concept and intervention acceptability, but highlighted necessary changes aimed at enhancing overall functionality/scalability of the ePROM system. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size.

conclusionsThis pilot trial demonstrates that patients are willing to be randomised to a trial assessing ePROM symptom monitoring. The intervention was considered acceptable; though measures to improve longer-term engagement are needed. A full-scale RCT is considered feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12669006 and the UK NIHR Portfolio (CPMS ID: 36497).

Indexed as

Renal DialysisRenal Insufficiency, ChronicAdultElectronicsFeasibility StudiesHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresUnited Kingdomclinical trialsend stage renal failurenephrology

Identifiers

PMID35304391
PMCPMC8935185

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.