English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In their correspondence, Hays et al. raise two main critiques of our recently published article entitled “Use of the KDQOL-36™ for assessment of health-related quality of life among dialysis patients in the United States.” First, Hays et al. expressed concerns regarding the comparison of mean scores on five Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL) subscales, given that the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) are scored on a different numeric scale compared to the other three subscales. Second, Hays et al. note that the correlations reported in our manuscript between the general health perceptions item (“In general, would you say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor”) and the 5 KDQOL subscales were inconsistent with findings derived from other KDQOL datasets. Here, we respond to these two critiques.

bmc nephrology

Response to correspondence from Hays and colleagues concerning our paper entitled, use of the KDQOL-36™ for assessment of health-related quality of life among dialysis patients in the United States