Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/134775
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Establishing core outcome domains in hemodialysis: report of the standardized outcomes in nephrology–hemodialysis (SONG-HD) consensus workshop
Author: Tong, A.
Manns, B.
Hemmelgarn, B.
Wheeler, D.C.
Evangelidis, N.
Tugwell, P.
Crowe, S.
Van Biesen, W.
Winkelmayer, W.C.
O'Donoghue, D.
Tam-Tham, H.
Shen, J.I.
Pinter, J.
Larkins, N.
Youssouf, S.
Mandayam, S.
Ju, A.
Craig, J.C.
Collins, A.
Narva, A.
et al.
Citation: American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 2017; 69(1):97-107
Publisher: Elsevier
Issue Date: 2017
ISSN: 0272-6386
1523-6838
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Allison Tong, Braden Manns, Brenda Hemmelgarn, David C. Wheeler, Nicole Evangelidis, PeterTugwell, Sally Crowe, Wim Van Biesen, Wolfgang C. Winkelmayer, Donal O, Donoghue, Helen Tam-Tham, Jenny I. Shen, Jule Pinter, Nicholas Larkins, Sajeda Youssouf, Sreedhar Mandayam, Angela Ju, and Jonathan C. Craig, on behalf of the SONG-HD Investigators
Abstract: Evidence-informed decision making in clinical care and policy in nephrology is undermined by trials that selectively report a large number of heterogeneous outcomes, many of which are not patient centered. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Initiative convened an international consensus workshop on November 7, 2015, to discuss the identification and implementation of a potential core outcome set for all trials in hemodialysis. The purpose of this article is to report qualitative analyses of the workshop discussions, describing the key aspects to consider when establishing core outcomes in trials involving patients on hemodialysis therapy. Key stakeholders including 8 patients/caregivers and 47 health professionals (nephrologists, policymakers, industry, and researchers) attended the workshop. Attendees suggested that identifying core outcomes required equitable stakeholder engagement to ensure relevance across patient populations, flexibility to consider evolving priorities over time, deconstruction of language and meaning for conceptual consistency and clarity, understanding of potential overlap and associations between outcomes, and an assessment of applicability to the range of interventions in hemodialysis. For implementation, they proposed that core outcomes must have simple, inexpensive, and validated outcome measures that could be used in clinical care (quality indicators) and trials (including pragmatic trials) and endorsement by regulatory agencies. Integrating these recommendations may foster acceptance and optimize the uptake and translation of core outcomes in hemodialysis, leading to more informative research, for better treatment and improved patient outcomes.
Keywords: Clinical research; consensus; hemodialysis; outcomes; standardized reporting; coreoutcome set; research quality; research priorities; patient-centered care; nephrology research; workshopreport; end-stage renal disease (ESRD)
Rights: © 2016 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.
DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.05.022
Grant ID: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1098815
http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1106716
Published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.05.022
Appears in Collections:Medicine publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.