Effect of Linking Practice Data to Published Evidence

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Clinical Direct Reports

E Andrew Balas, Suzanne Austin Boren, Lanis L. Hicks, Arnold M. Chonko, Karen Stephenson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of clinical direct reports (practice data with pertinent evidence from the literature) on dialysis modality selection for patients with end-stage renal disease. Methods. A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at five dialysis centers. Five of the 10 physician participants were assigned through centralized computerized randomization to the intervention group (who received 12 center-specific clinical direct reports encouraging the consideration of peritoneal dialysis), and five were assigned to the control group, who received usual information but no similar report. One hundred fifty-two patients were eligible for monitoring. Results. The number of patients allocated to peritoneal dialysis was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (15.3% versus 2.4%; P = 0.044). Due to a need for transient initial hemodialysis by some patients, the percentage of patients receiving peritoneal dialysis further increased through the end of the 3-month follow-up (18.0% versus 4.9%, P = 0.041). Conclusions. There were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups in meeting patient preferences, metabolic status, and complication rates. The results of this study show that linking pertinent published evidence to actual practice data can support the implementation of practice recommendations and influence the selection of dialysis treatment for new patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)79-87
Number of pages9
JournalMedical Care
Volume36
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1998

Fingerprint

Randomized Controlled Trials
Peritoneal Dialysis
Dialysis
Control Groups
Group Processes
Patient Preference
Random Allocation
Patient Selection
Chronic Kidney Failure
Renal Dialysis
Physicians
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Computerized feedback
  • Dialysis
  • Randomized controlled clinical trial
  • Utilization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Effect of Linking Practice Data to Published Evidence : A Randomized Controlled Trial of Clinical Direct Reports. / Balas, E Andrew; Boren, Suzanne Austin; Hicks, Lanis L.; Chonko, Arnold M.; Stephenson, Karen.

In: Medical Care, Vol. 36, No. 1, 01.01.1998, p. 79-87.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Balas, E Andrew ; Boren, Suzanne Austin ; Hicks, Lanis L. ; Chonko, Arnold M. ; Stephenson, Karen. / Effect of Linking Practice Data to Published Evidence : A Randomized Controlled Trial of Clinical Direct Reports. In: Medical Care. 1998 ; Vol. 36, No. 1. pp. 79-87.
@article{8f68deb89b5a4b66be3b924db28110ec,
title = "Effect of Linking Practice Data to Published Evidence: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Clinical Direct Reports",
abstract = "Objectives. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of clinical direct reports (practice data with pertinent evidence from the literature) on dialysis modality selection for patients with end-stage renal disease. Methods. A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at five dialysis centers. Five of the 10 physician participants were assigned through centralized computerized randomization to the intervention group (who received 12 center-specific clinical direct reports encouraging the consideration of peritoneal dialysis), and five were assigned to the control group, who received usual information but no similar report. One hundred fifty-two patients were eligible for monitoring. Results. The number of patients allocated to peritoneal dialysis was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (15.3{\%} versus 2.4{\%}; P = 0.044). Due to a need for transient initial hemodialysis by some patients, the percentage of patients receiving peritoneal dialysis further increased through the end of the 3-month follow-up (18.0{\%} versus 4.9{\%}, P = 0.041). Conclusions. There were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups in meeting patient preferences, metabolic status, and complication rates. The results of this study show that linking pertinent published evidence to actual practice data can support the implementation of practice recommendations and influence the selection of dialysis treatment for new patients.",
keywords = "Computerized feedback, Dialysis, Randomized controlled clinical trial, Utilization",
author = "Balas, {E Andrew} and Boren, {Suzanne Austin} and Hicks, {Lanis L.} and Chonko, {Arnold M.} and Karen Stephenson",
year = "1998",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/00005650-199801000-00009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "79--87",
journal = "Medical Care",
issn = "0025-7079",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of Linking Practice Data to Published Evidence

T2 - A Randomized Controlled Trial of Clinical Direct Reports

AU - Balas, E Andrew

AU - Boren, Suzanne Austin

AU - Hicks, Lanis L.

AU - Chonko, Arnold M.

AU - Stephenson, Karen

PY - 1998/1/1

Y1 - 1998/1/1

N2 - Objectives. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of clinical direct reports (practice data with pertinent evidence from the literature) on dialysis modality selection for patients with end-stage renal disease. Methods. A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at five dialysis centers. Five of the 10 physician participants were assigned through centralized computerized randomization to the intervention group (who received 12 center-specific clinical direct reports encouraging the consideration of peritoneal dialysis), and five were assigned to the control group, who received usual information but no similar report. One hundred fifty-two patients were eligible for monitoring. Results. The number of patients allocated to peritoneal dialysis was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (15.3% versus 2.4%; P = 0.044). Due to a need for transient initial hemodialysis by some patients, the percentage of patients receiving peritoneal dialysis further increased through the end of the 3-month follow-up (18.0% versus 4.9%, P = 0.041). Conclusions. There were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups in meeting patient preferences, metabolic status, and complication rates. The results of this study show that linking pertinent published evidence to actual practice data can support the implementation of practice recommendations and influence the selection of dialysis treatment for new patients.

AB - Objectives. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of clinical direct reports (practice data with pertinent evidence from the literature) on dialysis modality selection for patients with end-stage renal disease. Methods. A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at five dialysis centers. Five of the 10 physician participants were assigned through centralized computerized randomization to the intervention group (who received 12 center-specific clinical direct reports encouraging the consideration of peritoneal dialysis), and five were assigned to the control group, who received usual information but no similar report. One hundred fifty-two patients were eligible for monitoring. Results. The number of patients allocated to peritoneal dialysis was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (15.3% versus 2.4%; P = 0.044). Due to a need for transient initial hemodialysis by some patients, the percentage of patients receiving peritoneal dialysis further increased through the end of the 3-month follow-up (18.0% versus 4.9%, P = 0.041). Conclusions. There were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups in meeting patient preferences, metabolic status, and complication rates. The results of this study show that linking pertinent published evidence to actual practice data can support the implementation of practice recommendations and influence the selection of dialysis treatment for new patients.

KW - Computerized feedback

KW - Dialysis

KW - Randomized controlled clinical trial

KW - Utilization

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031601122&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031601122&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00005650-199801000-00009

DO - 10.1097/00005650-199801000-00009

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 79

EP - 87

JO - Medical Care

JF - Medical Care

SN - 0025-7079

IS - 1

ER -