Evidence mapPaperPMID 40487369Full record

ArticleClinical kidney journal2025

How do patient information documents present dialysis and conservative kidney management? A document analysis.

Ryann Sowden, Chloe Shaw, James Robb, Anna Winterbottom, Katherine Bristowe, Hilary L Bekker, James Tulsky, Fliss E M Murtagh, Rebecca Barnes, Fergus J Caskey and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors.

Ryann SowdenPalliative and End of Life Care Research Group, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6348-8563
Chloe ShawPalliative and End of Life Care Research Group, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
James RobbPalliative and End of Life Care Research Group, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Anna WinterbottomLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Katherine BristoweCicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, UK.
Hilary L BekkerLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
James TulskyDepartment of Supportive Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Fliss E M MurtaghWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK.
Rebecca BarnesNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Fergus J CaskeyBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Lucy E SelmanPalliative and End of Life Care Research Group, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5747-2699

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Most older people with advanced kidney disease face a decision between conservative kidney management (CKM) or dialysis and must weigh their potential benefits, risks and impacts on quality and length of life. Patient information documents are designed to supplement patients' understanding of their kidney disease and explain treatment options to support decision-making. We aimed to explore how patient information documents frame the treatment options of CKM and dialysis and consider implications for patients' treatment choice. Methods: We conducted a qualitative document analysis of patient information documents collected from four UK renal outpatient departments with variation in rates of CKM for people ≥75 years of age. Data were analysed using critical discourse analysis. Results: Three global themes were identified: 1) Treatment options are not presented equally: Dialysis was constructed as the assumed patient choice. CKM was often omitted as an option; when included, it was always mentioned last and was typically constructed negatively. 2) Deciding is challenging: Treatment decision-making, particularly choosing CKM, was portrayed as a challenge requiring emotional support, with clinicians the ultimate decision-maker. 3) Dialysis is living, CKM is dying: Patient information documents presented patients as living with one treatment option choice (dialysis) and dying with another (CKM). Advance care planning, palliative care and information about dying were presented only in the context of CKM, implying these were irrelevant topics for people choosing dialysis. Conclusions: Patient information documents presented unbalanced explanations of dialysis and CKM. Dialysis was framed as 'treatment' and possible complications were minimized. CKM was framed as 'non-treatment' and linked to advance care planning, palliative care and death. Inaccurate framing of both CKM and dialysis may mean patients exclude treatment options that may be more concordant with their goals, values and preferences.

Indexed as

conservative kidney managementdialysisdocument analysiskidney replacement therapypatient education

Identifiers

PMID40487369
PMCPMC12142001

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.