ArticleCanadian journal of kidney health and disease2026
Defining a High-Quality Living Kidney Donor Evaluation: A Delphi Survey and Consensus Conference Summary Report.
Article in Canadian journal of kidney health and disease, 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many living kidney donors (LKDs) describe their evaluation process as the most difficult part of donating a kidney. The process is often lengthy, complex and inefficient, frequently requiring several months to complete. A more efficient and donor-centered evaluation may improve LKD experiences, reduce attrition, and encourage more individuals to donate. Methods: We employed a Delphi approach to define and select metrics of a high-quality LKD evaluation. Four multidisciplinary working groups were created in which LKDs (n=8), healthcare professionals (n=11), and administrators (n=3) collaborated to develop evidence and experience informed recommendations. Results: This work culminated in a national consensus conference held virtually in September 2024, which brought together over 100 LKDs, nurses, nephrologists, surgeons, researchers, and representatives from transplant organizations. Of the 42 recommendations evaluated through the e-Delphi process, 35 achieved consensus (≥75% agreement) across four domains. Ninety-two percent were supported by moderate-quality evidence, while 8% had no supporting evidence, reflecting the limited empirical data available for several aspects of donor evaluation processes. The recommendations clustered into four overarching themes included: (1) increasing donor numbers and evaluation efficiency (e.g., eligibility for donation determined within three to six months), (2) enhancing program resources and donor reimbursement (e.g., metrics on donor financial neutrality), (3) ensuring a donor-centered evaluation process (e.g., donor-centered metrics such as donor satisfaction), and (4) promoting consistency and evidence-based practice across programs (e.g., consistent evaluation nationally). Conclusion: Collectively, these recommendations provide a framework to guide quality improvement, benchmarking, and policy development, with implications for strengthening the LKD evaluation process worldwide.
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.