CKD: Protein Restriction: Low Protein Diet (2018)
Author and Year:
Kloppenburg W et al 2004
PubMed ID:
Article Title:
Effect of prescribing a high protein diet and increasing the dose of dialysis on nutrition in stable chronic haemodialysis patients: a randomized, controlled trial.
Authors:
Kloppenburg W, Stegeman C, Hovinga T, Vastenburg G, Vos P, de Jong P, Huisman R
Journal:
Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association
Year of publication:
2004
Volume:
19
Issue:
5
Page numbers:
1212-23
Study Design:
Randomized Crossover Trial
Risk of Bias Assessment Rating:
Neutral
Inclusion Criteria:
Patients treated by hemodialysis three times weekly for at least 3 months using low-flux (ultrafiltration coefficient >10 ml/mmHg/h) dialysers with low completement activation and dialysate containing 32 mmol/l of bicarbonate, patients with Kt/V between 0.8 and 1.2 per session, a residual renal function < 3 ml/min, a stable clinical condition without hospitalization during greater than or equal to 3 months
Exclusion Criteria:
Patients with overt edema, inflammatory diseases, diabetes mellitus, active systemic diseases, or known malignancies
Research Purpose:
To determine whether a high protein (HP) diet would have a favourable effect on dietary protein intake and nutritional status over time compared with a regular protein (RP) diet in clinically stable, chronic, adequately dialysed hemodialysis patients.
Secondly, to determine whether increasing the dialysis dose above the minimum accepted level would have a favorable effect on protein intake and nutritional status.
Finally, to evaluate the effect of the prescribed protein diets and dialysis dose on the control of hyperphosphatemia and metabolic acidosis.
Blinding efforts:
Non-blinded
Study Location:
Six dialysis centers in The Netherlands
Source(s) of Funding:
Industry, University/Hospital
Please specify names of funders:
Nutricia Nederland B.V. supplied supplements
Dialysis Centre Groningen
University Hospital Groningen
Dianet and University Medical Centre Utrecht
Martini Hospital Groningen
Scheper Hospital Emmen
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? | Yes | |
2.4. | Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? | Yes | |
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) | Yes | |
3.2. | Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? | Yes | |
3.3. | Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) | Yes | |
4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | Yes | |
4.1. | Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? | Yes | |
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 | |
4.4. | Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? | Yes | |
5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | No | |
5.1. | In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? | No | |
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.) | Yes | |
6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | Yes | |
6.1. | In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? | Yes | |
6.3. | Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? | Yes | |
6.4. | Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? | Yes | |
6.5. | Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? | Yes | |
6.6. | Were extra or unplanned treatments described? | N/A | |
6.7. | Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? | Yes | |
7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | No | |
7.1. | Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? | Yes | |
7.2. | Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? | No | |
7.3. | Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? | 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? | ??? | |
7.6. | Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? | Yes | |
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)? | Yes | |
8.5. | Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? | Yes | |
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? | Yes | |
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 | |