ReviewInternational urology and nephrology2024
Development and validation of the patient-reported outcome scale for chronic kidney disease.
Review in International urology and nephrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Integrated, Evidence-Guided Framework for Chronic Kidney Disease Self-Management: Behavioral Mechanisms, Implementation Strategies, and Real-World Application.Kidney & blood pressure research · 2026Review
- Defining patient-reported outcomes in diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease for clinical practice guidelines - perspectives of the taskforce of the Guideline Workshop.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2025Article
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
purposeThe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measuring patient's experience and perception of disease are important components of approach to care. However, no tools are available to assess the PROs of chronic kidney disease (CKD). This study aims to develop and verify a PROs scale to evaluate clinical outcomes in CKD patients.
methodsThe theoretical structure model and original item pool were formed through a literature review, patient interviews and references to relevant scales. The Delphi method, classical test theory methods and item response theory method were used to select items and adjust dimensions to form the final scale. Altogether 360 CKD patients were recruited through convenience sampling. CKD-PROs could be evaluated from four aspects, namely reliability, content validity, construct validity, responsibility, and feasibility.
resultsThe CKD-PROs scale covers 4 domains, including the physiological, psychological, social, and therapeutic domain, and 12 dimensions, 54 items. The Cronbach's α is 0.939, the split reliability coefficient is 0.945, and the correlation of the scores each item and domain's coefficients range from 0.413 to 0.669. The results of structure validity, content validity and reactivity showed that the multidimensional measurement of the scale met professional expectations. The recovery rate and effective rate of the scale were over 99%.
conclusionThe CKD-PROs scale has great reliability, validity, reactivity, acceptability and is capable of being used as one of the evaluation tools for the clinical outcomes of CKD patients.
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.