Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHallan, Stein
dc.contributor.authorRifkin, Dena E
dc.contributor.authorpotok, olivia
dc.contributor.authorLanglo, Knut Asbjørn Rise
dc.contributor.authorDekker, Friedo W.
dc.contributor.authorIx, Joachim H.
dc.identifier.citationKidney Medicine. 2020, 2 (3),en_US
dc.description.abstractRationale & Objective The Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative (KDOQI) and Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) chronic kidney disease (CKD) classification systems published in 2002 and 2012, respectively, are recommended worldwide and based on strong epidemiologic data. However, their impact on CKD recognition and management is not well evaluated in clinical practice, and we therefore investigated whether they help physicians recognize and appropriately care for patients with CKD. Study Design Randomized vignette experiment with fractional factorial design based on 6 kidney-related scenarios and 3 laboratory presentation methods reflecting the CKD guidelines. Participants evaluated 1 of 3 subsets of the 18 vignettes (ie, 6 vignettes each with 4 answer alternatives). Setting & Participants 249 interns, general practitioners, and residents/fellows attending postgraduate meetings and courses in Norway and the United States. Intervention Kidney-related results (serum creatinine level and urinary albumin excretion) were presented as the “minimal data” (high/low levels), KDOQI-2002 (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] reported automatically), or KDIGO-2012 (eGFR + albuminuria categorization + risk for complications) laboratory report. Outcome CKD management choice by physicians. Results When kidney laboratory data were presented as the KDOQI-2002 report (automatic eGFR calculation), there was a significantly higher odds for correct patient management decisions compared with the minimal data report (OR, 1.57; P < 0.001). Additional significant improvement was obtained with the KDIGO-2012 report (OR, 2.28 for correct answer vs minimal data report [P < 0.001]; OR, 1.45 compared to KDOQI-2002 report [P = 0.005]). The KDIGO classification system improved physician management in 4 of the 6 clinical scenarios covering a wide range of kidney-related topics. Interaction analysis showed that general practitioners and those with 1 to 3 years of internal medicine experience had the greatest improvements with the new presentation techniques. Limitations Physicians’ management was evaluated by theoretical scenarios rather than direct patient care. Conclusions Automatic GFR estimation, albuminuria categorization, and notification of the associated risk for complications improve most physicians` recognition and management of a wide range of CKD clinical scenarios.en_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.titlePhysicians’ Recognition and Management of Kidney Disease: A Randomized Vignette Study Evaluating the Impact of the KDIGO 2012 CKD Classification Systemen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.source.journalKidney Medicineen_US
dc.description.localcodeThis article is available under the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND license and permits non-commercial use of the work as published, without adaptation or alteration provided the work is fully attributed.en_US

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal