ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Quality Improvement Initiatives in Renal Biopsy for Patient-Centered Communication by Shared Decision Making.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Reducing Waiting Times and Admission Periods through Pre-Admission Testing: A Quality Improvement Study on In-Hospital Renal Biopsy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Validating the association of Oxford classification and renal function deterioration among Taiwanese individuals with Immunoglobulin A nephropathy.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A retrospective study of differences in patients' anxiety and satisfaction between paper-based and computer-based tools for "Shared Decision-Making".Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRenal biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosing renal disease. The major concern is bleeding. Shared decision making (SDM) has been reported to improve communication but has never been used regarding renal biopsy.
methodsWe launched a 5-year project on SDM for renal biopsy. We collected cases of renal biopsy and bleeding, and cases of SDM. The process of quality improvement (QI) for SDM is also shared.
resultsTaichung Veterans General Hospital has the largest number of renal biopsy cases, and the lowest bleeding rate in Taiwan. We enlisted a core team for this QI project and conducted stakeholder mapping. In 2017, we conducted a small pilot study for SDM based on printed material as a decision aid. The satisfaction rate was 95.5%. From 2018 to 2019, we improved SDM patients' decision aid from printed material to four videos, designing questions to consolidate their understanding, and a unique information platform. The above improvements facilitated the utilization of SDM for renal biopsy (81.27% in 2020 and 100% in 2021). Even with higher bleeding complications in 2019 and 2020, patients remained satisfied when we launched SDM prior to renal biopsy.
conclusionThis is the first study regarding SDM on renal biopsy. Through SDM, patients had time to understand renal biopsy, including risk and benefit. We recommend SDM to elaborate renal biopsy in clinical practice.
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.