Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37854024›Full record

ArticleTransplantation direct2023

Putting Guidelines Into Practice: Is Frailty Measurement at the Time of Kidney Transplant Eligibility Assessment Valid, Feasible, and Acceptable to Patients?

Shavini Weerasekera, Natasha Reid, Adrienne Young, Ryan Homes, Aaron Sia, Fiona Giddens, Ross S Francis, Ruth E Hubbard, Emily H Gordon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transplantation direct, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Shavini WeerasekeraGeriatrics and Rehabilitation Unit, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital & Health Service, Brisbane, Australia.
Natasha ReidCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Adrienne YoungCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Ryan HomesFaculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Aaron SiaGeriatrics and Rehabilitation Unit, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital & Health Service, Brisbane, Australia.
Fiona GiddensDepartment of Nephrology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital & Health Service, Brisbane, Australia.
Ross S FrancisCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Ruth E HubbardGeriatrics and Rehabilitation Unit, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital & Health Service, Brisbane, Australia.
Emily H GordonGeriatrics and Rehabilitation Unit, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital & Health Service, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9985-6404

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Clinical Practice Guidelines suggest that frailty be measured during kidney transplant eligibility assessments. Yet it is not known how frailty is best assessed in this setting or whether its assessment is acceptable to patients. We aimed to examine the construct validity and feasibility of Frailty Index (FI) assessment among patients attending a kidney transplant assessment clinic and to explore patients' perspectives on frailty and the acceptability of its routine assessment. Methods: A 58-item FI was calculated for 147 clinic patients. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a subgroup of 29 patients. The FI was validated against normative FI characteristics (mean, distribution, limit), age, and the Estimated Post-Transplant Survival Score. Feasibility was assessed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: The mean FI was 0.23 (±0.10, normal distribution, limit 0.53). FI increased with age and Estimated Post-Transplant Survival score. The FI was completed for 62.8% of eligible patients (147/234). The median completion time was 10 min, and completion rate (with no missing data) was 100%. Four themes were identified: perceptions of frailty, acceptability, perceived benefits, and risks of frailty measurement. Patients linked frailty with age and adverse outcomes, and most did not consider themselves frail. Patients reported that the FI was quick, simple, and efficient. They felt that frailty assessment is relevant to transplant eligibility and should be used to address potentially reversible factors. Conclusions: The FI demonstrated construct validity and was feasible and acceptable in this clinic setting. The challenge is ensuring that routine assessments lead to better care.

Identifiers

PMID37854024
PMCPMC10581598

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.