Reanalysis of the physical and mental health summary scores of dialysis versus conservative care in older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: a critical appraisal

• Published in: BMC research notes 2019-11, Vol.12 (1), p.722-722, Article 722
• Main Authors: Verberne, Wouter R, Dijkers, Janneke, Kelder, Johannes C, Jellema, Wilbert T, van Delden, Johannes J M, Bos, Willem Jan W
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Algorithms; Care and treatment; Chronic kidney failure; Conservatism; Conservative treatment; Elderly patients; Female; Health aspects; Health Status; Health-related quality of life; Hemodialysis; Humans; Kidney diseases; Kidney failure; Linear Models; Male; Mental Health; Outcome Assessment, Health Care - methods; Quality of Life - psychology; Renal dialysis; Renal Dialysis - methods; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic - psychology; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic - therapy; Research Note; Retrospective Studies; Surveys and Questionnaires
• ISSN: 1756-0500; 1756-0500
• DOI: 10.1186/s13104-019-4765-3

Non-dialytic conservative care is argued to be a reasonable treatment alternative for dialysis in selected older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. We evaluated patient-relevant outcomes including health-related quality of life in a previous study. However, the scoring algorithm we used to calculate the physical and mental component summary scores of the Short Form-36 (SF-36) turned out to differ from comparable studies on this topic. The aim of this critical appraisal was to reanalyze the SF-36 summary scores in our patient cohort (≥ 70 years) using the more widely used scoring algorithm. Patients on conservative care (n = 23) had lower physical and mental component summary scores compared to patients not yet started on dialysis (n = 39), but similar compared to patients on dialysis (n = 34). These findings were similar to our original findings and did not change the conclusions. Several scoring algorithms are used for the SF-36 summary scores. Researchers should be aware of this fact and should use the same scoring algorithm across similar studies in a specific field to increase comparability. Using the more widely used scoring algorithm, the recalculated SF-36 summary scores of our patient cohort can now be compared to other studies.