ArticleCureus2026
Evaluation of a Community-Based Chronic Kidney Disease Screening Program at a Senior Living Community in Blacksburg, Virginia.
Article in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChronic kidney disease (CKD) is often asymptomatic until advanced stages, predominantly affecting adults aged ≥65 years. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) currently states that there is insufficient evidence to perform routine screening for CKD in those who do not display symptoms. Without proper guidelines to routinely perform these tests, free screenings are scarce throughout the United States, but are offered by certain organizations such as the Kidney Disease Screening and Awareness Program (KDSAP). In October 2024, the Virginia Tech Chapter of KDSAP performed a free CKD screening at Warm Hearth Village (WHV) retirement home in Blacksburg, Virginia, an ideal population to catch early progression of this disease. This study aimed to understand if this screening increased awareness, convenience/satisfaction, follow-up adherence, and recommendations for program improvement. Methods: A cross-sectional, anonymous survey was distributed to 36 residents who participated one year after the screening. The option of an electronic or paper copy of our survey was provided by the WHV staff and collected upon completion. No reminder or follow-up contact regarding surveys was provided.
resultsEleven out of 36 participants responded to the survey. Results showed that the program was convenient or very convenient (72.8%), the program improved understanding of kidney health (81.8%), explanations varied in clarity (45.5% completely clear, 45.5% somewhat clear, 9% not clear), and the program left participants satisfied or very satisfied (63.6%), with strong interest in future screenings (81.8%). Every responder agreed with expansion to other communities (100%). Suggested areas for improvement include time and availability, wait times, explanation of results, and follow-up communication.
conclusionCommunity-based CKD screenings appear feasible and well-received, but improved scheduling, staffing, education, and explanation of results may enhance program effectiveness.
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.