ArticleKidney medicine2025
CKD Knowledge and CKD Report Card Use During a Nephrology Encounter: A Randomized Trial.
Article in Kidney medicine, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale & Objective: Higher chronic kidney disease (CKD) knowledge and health literacy (HL) are associated with improved CKD outcomes. We sought to determine if the CKD Report Card intervention increased CKD knowledge in patients regardless of HL level. Study Design: A block-randomized trial by clinic session. Setting & Participants: Patients with CKD 3 or above in an urban academic nephrology clinic. Intervention: The intervention group received the CKD Report Card, a 2-sided information sheet, before the clinic visit. Outcomes: Kidney Knowledge Survey pre-post-visit score change. Results: Of 91 participants, the average age was 66.2 years, 64.8% identified as African American, 41.8% were male, and 11.0% had inadequate HL. The control group's (n = 53) mean pre-visit knowledge score was 55.8% with a post-pre-score change of 0.9 (95% confidence intervals [CI], -1.3 to 3.2). The intervention group's (n = 38) mean pre-visit score was 60.2% with a score change of 19.2 (95% CI, 15.2-23.3). The difference in score change between the control group and intervention group was -18.4 (95% CI, -22.6 to -14.1). In addition, there was no significant difference in knowledge gained by adequate and inadequate HL for the control group ( Limitations: Limited generalizability because the study took place at 1 academic medical center and there were only a small proportion of patients with inadequate HL. Conclusions: The CKD Report Card is a low-touch, low-cost intervention that improved CKD knowledge for all patients in our urban nephrology clinic regardless of HL level.
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.