SynthesisPloS one2022
Establishing the criterion validity of self-report measures of adherence in hemodialysis through associations with clinical biomarkers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate measurement of adherence is crucial to rigorously evaluate interventions aimed at improving this outcome in patients undergoing in-center hemodialysis. Previous research has shown great variability in non-adherence rates between studies, mainly due to the use of different direct (e.g., clinical biomarkers) and indirect (e.g., questionnaires) measures. Although self-reported adherence in hemodialysis has been widely explored, it is still unclear which is the most accurate questionnaire to assess this outcome; therefore, the question of how to optimize adherence measurement in research and clinical practice has emerged as a key issue that needs to be addressed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the criterion validity of self-report measures of adherence in hemodialysis established through the association between test scores and clinical biomarkers (the criterion measure). The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (2021 CRD42021267550). The last search was performed on March 29th, 2022, on Web of Science (all databases included), Scopus, CINHAL, APA PsycInfo, and MEDLINE/PubMed. Twenty-nine primary studies were included, and thirty-eight associations were analyzed. The Hunter-Schmidt's meta-analysis was computed for the associations with more than two studies (n = 20). The results showed that six associations were large (16%), 11 were medium (29%) and the remaining were of small strength. The test scores from the End-Stage Renal Disease Adherence Questionnaire (range: 0.212<rc <0.319) and the Dialysis Diet and Fluid Non-Adherence Questionnaire (range: 0.206<rc <0.359) had medium to large strength associations with interdialytic weight gain, serum phosphorus, and potassium levels, indicating that these questionnaires have reasonable concurrent criterion validity to measure fluid control and adherence to dietary restrictions in patients receiving hemodialysis. The available data did not allow exploring the criterion validity of the test scores in relation to hemodialysis attendance (skipping and/or shortening sessions). These results suggest that the decision to use one questionnaire over another must be made with caution, as researchers need to consider the characteristics of the sample and the objectives of the study. Given that direct and indirect methods have their advantages and disadvantages, the combination of adherence measures in hemodialysis is recommended to accurately assess this complex and multidimensional outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.