The UK Renal Registry Advanced CKD Study: frequency of incorrect reporting of date of start of RRT

Background: A preliminary review of the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) pre-RRT study data revealed results suggesting that, for some patients, the date of start of renal replacement therapy (RRT), as reported to the UKRR, was incorrect and often significantly later than the true date of start. A more detailed study then aimed to validate a set of criteria to identify patients with an incorrect start date. Methods: Pre-RRT laboratory data were electronically extracted from 8,810 incident RRT patients from 9 UK renal centres. Any patient with a low urea (<15 mmol/L) at the start of RRT or with a substantial improvement in kidney function (either a fall in urea >10 mmol/L or rise in eGFR >2 ml/min/1.73 m) within the two months prior to RRT were considered to potentially have an incorrect date of start. In 4
selected centres, the electronic patient records of all patients flagged were reviewed to validate these criteria.
Results: Of 8,810 patients, 1,616 (18.3%) were flagged by the identification criteria as having a potentially incorrect date of start of RRT, although a single centre accounted for 41% of the total flagged cohort. Of these flagged patients, 61.7% had been assigned an incorrect date of start of haemodialysis (HD), 5.7% had evidence of acute RRT being given before the reported date of start of HD
and 9.2% had evidence of starting peritoneal dialysis exchanges prior to the reported date of start. Of
those flagged, 10.7% had a correct date of start of RRT.
Conclusions: Accurate reporting of RRT episodes is vital for the analysis of time dependent studies such as survival or time to transplantation. A proportion of patients starting RRT were assigned an incorrect start date. In order to improve the accuracy of this reporting the UK Renal Registry
must work with renal centres and clinical staff on improving data input for the start of RRT.

Uses of expertise:Sources, quotes, and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news

Science journalists call upon experts for background and for clarification and comment on scientific findings. This paper examines how science writers choose and use experts, and it focuses on several cases of reporting about genetics and behavior. Our research included two sources of data: interviews with 15 science reporters and three print media samples of coverage of genetics and behavior - alcoholism (between 1980-1995), homosexuality (in 1993 and 1995), and mental illness (between 1970-1995). Science reporters seek relevant and specific experts for nearly every story. Good sources are knowledgeable, are connected to prestigious institutions, are direct and articulate and don't overqualify statements, and they return phone calls. The mean number of experts quoted was 2.8 per story, differing for alcoholism (3.5), homosexuality (2.8), and mental illness (2.6). Researchers and scientists predominated among experts quoted. Quotes were used to provide context, give legitimization, as explication, to provide a kind of balance, and to outline implications. For the homosexuality sample, a significantly greater percentage of activists and advocates were quoted (21 percent compared with 5 percent and 1 percent in other samples, X <0.0001). "Lay" quotes for alcoholism and mental illness were minimal. Except for homosexuality, whose advocates are organized, those "affected" do not have a voice in genetics news stories.