ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Development of minimum data set and electronic registry for hemodialysis patients management.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to develop a minimum dataset and an electronic registry system for hemodialysis patients to evaluate hemodialysis patients' treatment procedures and outcomes, conduct related research, and design therapeutic interventions.
methodsThis developmental research was performed in multiple phases, including content determination using the Delphi technique; database designing using MySQL; building a user interface using PHP; usability evaluation using the think-aloud method by 10 evaluators through a scenario consisting of 7 tasks; and finally, the system was piloted by entering the 160 patients' paper records into the system.
resultsFollowing the CVR and CVI content validity assessment, 108 of the 118 extracted data elements (DEs) were validated. Then, using the Delphi technique, nephrologists chose 57 DEs and divided them into 4 information categories, including the patient's clinical history, hemodialysis episodes, laboratory findings, and the outcomes of hemodialysis. The three tabs that made up the user interface were the homepage, information recording, reports, and definitions. The problems with appearance and performance were discovered using the think-aloud method, and they were then resolved. Finally, users had the opportunity to identify issues, improve the system's capabilities, and express their satisfaction throughout the system's three-month test period.
conclusionsThe E-hemodialysis registry was created based on knowledge gained from industrialized nations, opinions and suggestions from medical specialists, and the facilities that were accessible. Information from this system can be utilized as a starting point for evaluating the hemodialysis patients' status, identifying problems, and making sensible decisions for the best possible planning and management of end-stage renal disease.
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.