CKD: Nutritional Status: Technical Devices and Anthropometric Measures (2018)
Author and Year:
Visser R et al 1999
PubMed ID:
Article Title:
Reliability of the 7-point subjective global assessment scale in assessing nutritional status of dialysis patients.
Authors:
Visser R, Dekker F, Boeschoten E, Stevens P, Krediet R
Journal:
Advances in Peritoneal Dialysis. Conference on Peritoneal Dialysis
Year of publication:
1999
Volume:
15
Issue:
Page numbers:
222-5
Study Design:
Diagnostic, Validity or Reliability Study
Risk of Bias Assessment Rating:
Neutral
Inclusion Criteria:
Age 18+
Clinically stable condition
Sufficient knowledge of the Dutch language
ESRD patient receiving dialysis (peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis) treatment in two different Dutch centers
Exclusion Criteria:
Not Reported
Research Purpose:
To assess the inter-observer and intra-observer reliability of the 7 point SGA scale in dialysis patients and to investigate its relationship with objective nutritional parameters.
Blinding efforts:
Not Reported
Study Location:
Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam and Dianet dialysis center in Utrecht, Netherlands
Source(s) of Funding:
Industry
Please specify names of funders:
Baxter B. V., Netherlands
|
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
|
|||
| Relevance Questions | |||
| 1. | Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
| 2. | Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Yes | |
| 3. | Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? | Yes | |
| 4. | Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
| Validity Questions | |||
| 1. | Was the research question clearly stated? | Yes | |
| 1.1. | Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? | Yes | |
| 1.2. | Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? | Yes | |
| 1.3. | Were the target population and setting specified? | Yes | |
| 2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | ??? | |
| 2.1. | Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? | Yes | |
| 2.2. | Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? | Yes | |
| 2.3. | Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? | No | |
| 2.4. | Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? | ??? | |
| 3. | Were study groups comparable? | Yes | |
| 3.1. | Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) | ??? | |
| 3.2. | Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? | ??? | |
| 3.3. | Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) | No | |
| 3.6. | If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? | Yes | |
| 4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | Yes | |
| 4.1. | Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? | ??? | |
| 4.2. | Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) | Yes | |
| 4.3. | Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? | Yes | |
| 4.5. | If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? | Yes | |
| 5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | Yes | |
| 5.2. | Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) | ??? | |
| 5.5. | In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? | ??? | |
| 6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | No | |
| 6.2. | In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? | Yes | |
| 6.3. | Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? | Yes | |
| 6.8. | In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? | No | |
| 7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Yes | |
| 7.2. | Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? | Yes | |
| 7.4. | Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? | Yes | |
| 7.5. | Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? | N/A | |
| 7.6. | Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? | ??? | |
| 7.7. | Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? | Yes | |
| 8. | Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Yes | |
| 8.1. | Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? | Yes | |
| 8.2. | Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? | Yes | |
| 8.3. | Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? | Yes | |
| 8.4. | Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? | N/A | |
| 8.5. | Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? | ??? | |
| 8.6. | Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? | Yes | |
| 8.7. | If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? | N/A | |
| 9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | Yes | |
| 9.1. | Is there a discussion of findings? | Yes | |
| 9.2. | Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? | Yes | |
| 10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |
| 10.1. | Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? | Yes | |
| 10.2. | Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? | Yes | |