ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
Reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized controlled trials of anemia treatments for people with CKD: a scoping review.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are key outcomes of importance for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), and may be of even higher relevance for patients with concomitant anemia which can often be symptomatic. Thus, PROs should be included as outcomes in clinical trials of interventions delivered to people with CKD. We evaluated the reporting of PROs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of anemia treatments delivered to people with CKD, assessing adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-PRO reporting guidelines. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a scoping review in October 2024 using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify RCTs of anemia treatments delivered to people with CKD, and subsequently identified publications of these RCTs which reported PROs data. We appraised adherence to seven elements outlined in CONSORT-PRO guidelines.
resultsFrom 280 publications of 248 eligible RCTs, 41 publications (15%) reported PROs data for iron treatments (n = 16), erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs; n = 22), hypoxia-inducible factor–prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors (HIF-PHIs; n = 2), or HIF-PHIs versus ESAs (n = 1). Data were reported for 22 different PRO measures. Most publications did not adhere to CONSORT-PRO guidelines, with 39% identifying the PRO measure in the study abstract, 7% providing a hypothesis surrounding the PROs, 10% reporting methods of PRO data collection, 27% providing statistical methods for handling missing data, and 10% discussing PRO-specific limitations and implications for generalizability. No publication followed all seven CONSORT-PRO elements evaluated.
conclusionsThere are a limited number of publications reporting PROs from RCTs of anemia treatments delivered to people with CKD. PRO measures used, as well as methods of data reporting and analysis, are highly variable. These findings highlight the need to adhere to established guidelines for reporting PROs data, which will enable interpretability and reliability of data in caring for people with CKD and anemia.
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.