ArticleBMC nephrology2024
Nephrology providers' perspective and use of mortality prognostic tools in dialysis patients.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMortality prognostic tools exist to aid in shared decision making with kidney failure patients but are underutilized. This study aimed to elucidate nephrology providers' practice patterns and understand barriers to prognostic tool use.
methodsNephrology providers (8 physicians and 2 nurse practitioners) at an academic medical center underwent semi-structured interviews regarding their experience and perspective on the utility of mortality prognostic tools. Common themes were identified independently by 2 reviewers using grounded theory. Three six-month mortality prognostic tools were applied to the 279 prevalent dialysis patients that the interviewed providers care for. The C statistic was calculated for each tool via logistic regression and subsequent ROC analysis. Nephrology providers reviewed the performance of the prognostication tools in their own patient population. A post interview reassessed perspectives and any change in attitudes regarding the tools.
resultsNephrology providers did not use these mortality prognostic tools in their practice. Key barriers identified were provider concern that the tools were not generalizable to their patients, providers' trust in their own clinical judgement over that of a prognostic tool, time constraints, and lack of knowledge about the data behind these tools. When re-interviewed with the results of the three prognostic tools in their patients, providers thought the tools performed as expected, but still did not intend to use the tools in their practice. They reported that these tools are good for populations, but not individual patients. The providers preferred to use clinical gestalt for prognostication.
conclusionAlthough several well validated prognostic tools are available for predicting mortality, the nephrology providers studied do not use them in routine practice, even after an educational intervention. Other approaches should be explored to help incorporate prognostication in shared-decision-making for patients receiving dialysis.
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.