Hemodialysis is associated with an increased risk of neoplasms which may result, at least in part, from exposure to ionizing radiation associated with frequent radiographic procedures. In order to estimate the average radiation exposure of those on hemodialysis, we conducted a retrospective study of 100 patients in a university-based dialysis unit followed for a median of 3.4 years. The number and type of radiological procedures were obtained from a central radiology database, and the cumulative effective radiation dose was calculated using standardized, procedure-specific radiation levels. The median annual radiation dose was 6.9 millisieverts (mSv) per patient-year. However, 14 patients had an annual cumulative effective radiation dose over 20 mSv, the upper averaged annual limit for occupational exposure. The median total cumulative effective radiation dose per patient over the study period was 21.7 mSv, in which 13 patients had a total cumulative effective radiation dose over 75 mSv, a value reported to be associated with a 7% increased risk of cancer-related mortality. Two-thirds of the total cumulative effective radiation dose was due to CT scanning. The average radiation exposure was significantly associated with the cause of end-stage renal disease, history of ischemic heart disease, transplant waitlist status, number of in-patient hospital days over follow-up, and death during the study period. These results highlight the substantial exposure to ionizing radiation in hemodialysis patients.

No abstract

Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for demonstrating the efficacy of new therapies. However, issues of external validity often affect result application to real-world settings. Using registries to conduct RCTs is a reasonably new practice, but is appealing because it combines the benefits of both observational studies and RCTs. There is limited literature on patient motivators, barriers, and consent to registries for conducting RCTs. The purpose of our study was to establish the factors that motivate and/or inhibit patients from joining a registry for RCTs and to determine what information matters to patients when making an enrolment decision to participate in such a registry. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study at a dialysis centre in Southwest Ireland representing a catchment patient population of approximately 430,000. Quantitative data were coded and analysed in SPSS (v16). Descriptive statistics were produced, and open-ended questions were analysed by thematic analysis. Results Eighty-seven patients completed the questionnaire. Reasons for participation in a registry included personal and altruistic benefits. Barriers to participation were time and travel requirements associated with registry participation, data safety concerns, risks, side effects, and concerns that registry participation would impact current treatment. Although 29.8% of patients expressed concern regarding their data being stored in a registry, 79.3% were still willing to consent to have their data uploaded and stored in a registry for conducting RCTs. It was important to patients to have their GP (general practitioner) involved in the decision to participate, despite little day-to-day contact with their GP for renal dialysis management. Conclusion Challenges to recruitment to registries for RCTs exist, but addressing the identified concerns of potential participants may aid patients in making a more informed enrolment decision and may improve recruitment to registries, and by extension, to RCTs conducted using the registry.

No abstract

Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for demonstrating efficacy of new therapies. Despite this, nephrology trials, especially of patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) are much fewer in number than other specialties. Recruitment difficulties are cited as a particular challenge. Using registries to conduct RCTs is a reasonably new practice but is appealing as it combines the benefits of observational studies and clinical trials. There is limited literature on patient motivators, barriers, and consent to these registries. The purpose of our study is to establish this. MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. A questionnaire consisting of closed and open-ended questions was collected at a dialysis centre in Southwest Ireland representing a catchment patient population of approximately 430,000. Quantitative data were coded and analysed in SPSS (v16). Descriptive statistics were produced, and open-ended questions were analysed by thematic analysis. Results 87 patients completed the questionnaire. Motivators for participation included personal and altruistic benefits. Barriers/concerns include time requirements, risks (incl. data safety) and side effects along with impacts on current treatment. Though a total of 29.8% of patients ‘strongly agree/agree’ to having concerns regarding their data storage in a registry, 79.3% of patients were ‘very likely/likely’ to consent to participate in the registry. It was important to patients to have their GP (general practitioner) involved in the decision to participate, despite little day-to-day contact with their GP for renal dialysis management. ConclusionImproving patients understanding of clinical trials, emphasising personal and altruistic benefits, and addressing patient’s concerns regarding time and risks of involvement, may improve their likelihood to participate in a registry for RCTs and more broadly speaking, RCTs.