ArticleKidney international reports2026
Priorities for Evidence-Based CKD Guidance Using Delphi Methods.
Article in Kidney international reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Topic selection for systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines often lacks transparent prioritization and meaningful community input. We aimed to identify shared priorities between people with lived experience of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and health-professionals to align evidence-based care with patient-clinician needs. Methods: We conducted a 3-round modified-Delphi survey across the following 4 modules: nondialysis CKD, peritoneal dialysis (PD), hemodialysis (HD), and transplantation. Round-1 participants rated (9-point Likert) and ranked (Best-Worst Scaling [BWS]) broad topics. Priority topics were refined into subtopics and rated in round-2; round-3 re-rated and ranked priority subtopics. Topic progression criteria included Likert thresholds, agreement (scores 7-9), and BWS scores (estimated via multinomial logistic regression), with data summarized descriptively (mean ± SD, % agreement). Results: Participation was 102 in round-1 (27% consumers) increasing to 613 in round-3 (71% consumers). Round-1 priority topics were as follows: Evaluation and management of CKD (8.09 ± 1.11, 93%), Infection and peritonitis management (PD; 7.98 ± 1.41, 88%), Cardiovascular disease management (HD; 7.96 ± 1.33, 89%), and Transplant rejection (8.36 ± 1.05, 96%). Across rounds 2 and 3, the prioritized subtopics were as follows: Treatment to slow CKD progression (6.37 ± 2.53, 56%), Maintenance of residual kidney function (PD; (7.19 ± 2.10, 96%), Volume control (HD; 7.15 ± 2.12, 75%), and Management of medication side-effects (transplantation; 6.65 ± 2.53, 65%). Where consumer-clinician differences emerged, consumers prioritized daily-life impacts (symptoms/side-effects, psychosocial support, infection prevention, and education), whereas clinicians emphasized care delivery (protocols, eligibility, and monitoring). Conclusion: This multistakeholder prioritization distilled broad kidney care domains into actionable subtopics, centered around slowing CKD progression and improving symptoms during kidney replacement therapy, providing targeted systematic reviews and guideline updates supporting shared decision-making in CKD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.