Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37669893›Full record

ArticleNephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association2024

Choosing conservative care in advanced chronic kidney disease: a scoping review of patients' perspectives.

Micha Jongejan, Sanne de Lange, Willem Jan W Bos, Arwen H Pieterse, Wanda S Konijn, Marjolijn van Buren, Alferso C Abrahams, Mathijs van Oevelen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

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

8 authors.

Micha JongejanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3600-2860
Sanne de LangeDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Willem Jan W BosDepartment of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Arwen H PieterseDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Wanda S KonijnDutch Kidney Patient Association (NVN), Bussum, The Netherlands.
Marjolijn van BurenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Alferso C AbrahamsDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mathijs van OevelenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7459-9656

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConservative care (CC) is a viable treatment option for some patients with kidney failure. Choosing between dialysis and CC can be a complex decision in which involvement of patients is desirable. Gaining insight into the experiences and preferences of patients regarding this decision-making process is an important initial step to improve care. We aimed to identify what is known about the perspective of patients regarding decision-making when considering CC.

methodsPubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were systematically searched on 23 February 2023 for qualitative and quantitative studies on patient-reported experiences on decision-making about CC. Data were analysed thematically.

resultsTwenty articles were included. We identified three major themes: creating awareness about disease and treatment choice, decision support and motivation to choose CC. Patients were often not aware of the option to choose CC. Patients felt supported by their loved ones during the decision-making process, although they perceived they made the final decision to choose CC themselves. Some patients felt pressured by their healthcare professional to choose dialysis. Reported reasons to choose CC were maintaining quality of life, treatment burden of dialysis, cost and the desire not to be a burden to others. In general, patients were satisfied with their decision for CC.

conclusionsBy focussing on the perspective of patients, we identified a wide range of patient experiences and preferences regarding the decision-making process. These findings can help to improve the complex decision-making process between dialysis and CC and to provide patient-centred care.

Indexed as

Kidney Failure, ChronicRenal Insufficiency, ChronicDecision MakingEmotionsHumansQuality of LifeRenal Dialysisdialysisend-stage kidney diseaseshared decision makingsupportive care

Identifiers

PMID37669893
PMCPMC10966331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.