ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
Developing and evaluating the patient's perspective of needling questionnaire for haemodialysis.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCannulation of vascular access for haemodialysis is essential when using arteriovenous access. However, this can be a painful and distressing procedure for patients. There is no current measure that enables inclusion of patients’ experiences of cannulation as an outcome in research comparing interventions to improve cannulation. This study aimed to develop a patient reported outcome measure of cannulation for haemodialysis, focusing on the physical and psychological experiences of patients. This was named the ‘Patient’s Perspective of Needling’ (PPN) questionnaire. METHODOLOGY: The PPN was developed with six patient representatives. Face validity assessed understandability, relevance and comprehensiveness of the PPN. Convergent validity assessed the correlation of the PPN results to the Short-Form Vascular Access Questionnaire (SF-VAQ). Internal consistency and test-retest reliability tested the reliability of the PPN. Floor and ceiling effects were examined and the interpretation of the results of the PPN were explored by: (a) using an item discrimination index; (b) calculating the smallest detectable change. Free text comments were analysed using basic thematic analysis.
resultsThe first version of the PPN underwent face validity testing with 12 participants from two renal centres, which led to further amendments of the PPN. The final PPN contained three sections with 17 questions, on pain, worry and problems. Internal consistency of the final PPN was 0.937 (n = 98, 95% CI 0.917–0.954, p < 0.0001). For convergent validity, a correlation to Question 3 of SF-VAQ was − 0.347 (95% CI -0.146 - -0.521, p < 0.001) and Question 4–15 of SF-VAQ was 0.613 (95% CI 0.450–0.736, p < 0.001). Test-retest reliability was 0.856 (95% CI 0.788–0.904, p < 0.001). The smallest detectable change was 0.135. The Pain section of the PPN scored the highest, with the Worry and Problems sections scoring lower. Free text comments from the PPN expanded on difficulties with cannulation, showing that cannulation experience varied over time and how patients cope with cannulation.
conclusionsThe PPN behaved in a valid and reliable manner for the tests completed, enabling patients’ experiences of cannulation to be included as an outcome in research studies into cannulation for haemodialysis.
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.