ArticlePloS one2024
Assessing the quality of CKD care using process quality indicators: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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
introductionAssessing the quality of chronic kidney disease (CKD) management is crucial for optimal care and identifying care gaps. It is largely unknown which quality indicators have been widely used and the potential variations in the quality of CKD care. We sought to summarize process quality indicators for CKD and assess the quality of CKD care.
methodsWe searched databases including Medline (Ovid), PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus from inception to June 20, 2024. Two reviewers screened the identified records, extracted relevant data, and classified categories and themes of quality indicators.
resultsWe included 24 studies, extracted 30 quality indicators, and classified them into three categories with nine themes. The three categories included laboratory measures and monitoring of CKD progression and/or complications (monitoring of kidney markers, CKD mineral and bone disorder, anemia and malnutrition, electrolytes, and volume), use of guideline-recommended therapeutic agents (use of medications), and attainment of therapeutic targets (blood pressure, glycemia, and lipids). Among the frequently reported quality indicators (in five or more studies), the following have a median proportion of study participants achieving that quality indicator exceeding 50%: monitoring of kidney markers (Scr/eGFR), use of medications (ACEIs/ARBs, avoiding non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)), management of blood pressure (with a target of ≤140/90, or without specific targets), and monitoring for glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)). The presence of diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or proteinuria was associated with higher achievement in indicators of monitoring of kidney markers, use of recommended medications, and management of blood pressure and glycemia.
conclusionThe quality of CKD management varies with quality indicators. A more consistent and complete reporting of key quality indicators is needed for future studies assessing CKD care quality.
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.