We appreciate the detailed review and commentary on our manuscript [1] provided by Hays et al. [2]. We agree with their observation that, because the physical component summary (PCS) and Symptoms and Problems of Kidney Disease (SPKD) subscales are scored on different scales, direct comparison of the scores is not appropriate. For this reason, we were careful to note that the mean scores that we observed (36.6 vs 73.0 respectively) convey different impressions about patients’ perceptions of their health, but we did not make any attempt to interpret the specific meaning of the numeric difference. We agree with Hays et al. that, in the future, consistent use of a single scoring method for all KDQOL subscales would greatly facilitate interpretation and contextualization of these scores.
Hays et al. raised an important question with regard to the correlation of the general health rating item and the 5 subscale scores as reported in our manuscript. Upon review, we have determined that indeed the correlations reported in our manuscript were based on analyses that included a coding error. This was an honest mistake that was not captured at the time of submission, and we thank Hays et al. for bringing this to our attention. Upon reanalysis, we find correlations that are broadly consistent with those reported by Hays et al., and our manuscript will be corrected to reflect these findings. Importantly, we have conducted a detailed review of the entire dataset and analysis underlying the remaining results presented in the manuscript and found no additional errors. Thus, we stand by all of the other results and conclusions as originally presented.
Anzeige
Improving health-related quality of life, and the tools for its evaluation, remains a top priority for the entire end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) community. Like Hays et al., we believe that successful efforts in this regard will require the combined efforts of patients, providers, and researchers working in both industry and academia. We remain fully committed to participation in these collaborative endeavors.
Acknowledgements
We thank all members of the Healthcare Analytics and Insights team at DaVita Clinical Research for helpful discussions during the execution of this project. We also gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the social workers at DaVita who administer the KDQOL-36™ survey, and the patients who complete it, without whom this work would not have been possible.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was conducted using deidentified patient data; therefore, according to title 45, part 46 of the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Code of Federal Regulations, this study was deemed exempt from institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee approval (Quorum IRB, Seattle, WA). We adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and informed consent was not required.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Anzeige
Competing interests
DEC, AL, SS, SMB, and FT are current or former employees of DaVita Clinical Research. DB is an employee of DaVita, Inc. SMB’s spouse is an employee of Astra Zeneca.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.