0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Random Sample (DOPPS) versus Census-Based (Registry) Approaches to Kidney Disease Research

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This review describes advantages and limitations of registries that base their analyses on the census of all patients. Registries may utilize the random sample approach to enrich their data for more detailed and informative research. The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Pattern Study (DOPPS) and its random sample approach is discussed here in detail, with examples on the value of this method. The DOPPS is currently being expanded to allow for even more valuable studies. This methodology can also be applied to large countries that do not have an existing registry, as it is an effective way of collecting detailed information at a relatively low cost that is representative of the country or population as a whole.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 1

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Vascular access use in Europe and the United States: results from the DOPPS.

          A direct broad-based comparison of vascular access use and survival in Europe (EUR) and the United States (US) has not been performed previously. Case series reports suggest that vascular access practices differ substantially in the US and EUR. We report on a representative study (DOPPS) which has used the same data collection protocol for> 6400 hemodialysis (HD) patients to compare vascular access use at 145 US dialysis units and 101 units in five EUR countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom). Logistic analysis evaluated factors associated with native arteriovenous fistula (AVF) versus graft use or permanent access versus catheter use for prevalent and incident HD patients. Times to failure for AVF and graft were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression. AVF was used by 80% of EUR and 24% of US prevalent patients, and was significantly associated with younger age, male gender, lower body mass index, non-diabetic status, lack of peripheral vascular disease, and no angina. After adjusting for these factors, AVF versus graft use was still much higher in EUR than US (AOR=21, P 30 days prior to ESRD compared with 74% in the US (P < 0.0001); pre-ESRD care was associated with increased odds of AVF versus graft use (AOR=1.9, P=0.01). New HD patients had a 1.8-fold greater odds (P=0.002) of starting HD with a permanent access if a facility's typical time from referral to access placement was < or =2 weeks. AVF use when compared to grafts was substantially lower (AOR=0.61, P=0.04) when surgery trainees assisted or performed access placements. When used as a patient's first access, AVF survival was superior to grafts regarding time to first failure (RR=0.53, P=0.0002), and AVF survival was longer in EUR compared with the US (RR=0.49, P=0.0005). AVF and grafts each displayed better survival if used when initiating HD compared with being used after patients began dialysis with a catheter. Large differences in vascular access use exist between EUR and the US, even after adjustment for patient characteristics. The results strongly suggest that a facility's preferences and approaches to vascular access practice are major determinants of vascular access use.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Journal
            BPU
            Blood Purif
            10.1159/issn.0253-5068
            Blood Purification
            S. Karger AG
            978-3-8055-7535-5
            978-3-318-00939-2
            0253-5068
            1421-9735
            2003
            2003
            22 January 2003
            : 21
            : 1
            : 85-88
            Affiliations
            aUniversity Renal Research and Education Association (URREA); bKidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, University of Michigan; cDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan; dDepartment of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and eDivision of Nephrology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., USA
            Article
            67859 Blood Purif 2003;21:85–88
            10.1159/000067859
            12596753
            © 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel

            Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

            Page count
            Tables: 1, References: 12, Pages: 4
            Product
            Self URI (application/pdf): https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/67859
            Categories
            Paper

            Cardiovascular Medicine, Nephrology

            End-stage renal disease, Census, Registry, DOPPS, Random sample

            Comments

            Comment on this article