assessing consensus between uk renal clinicians on listing for kidney transplantation: a modified delphi study

Clicks: 224
ID: 170221
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #2 of 6 articles by views in topoi

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Background. It is well recognized that there is significant variation between centers in access to kidney transplantation. In the absence of high-grade evidence, it is unclear whether variation is due to patient case mix, other center factors, or individual clinician decisions. This study sought consensus between UK clinicians on factors that should influence access to kidney transplantation. Methods. As part of the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures project, consultant nephrologists and transplant surgeons in 71 centers were invited to participate in a Delphi study involving 2 rounds. During rounds 1 and 2, participants rated their agreement to 29 statements covering 8 topics regarding kidney transplantation. A stakeholder meeting was used to discuss statements of interest after the 2 rounds. Results. In total, 122 nephrologists and 16 transplant surgeons from 45 units participated in rounds 1 and 2. After 2 rounds, 12 of 29 statements reached consensus. Fifty people participated in the stakeholder meeting. After the stakeholder meeting, a further 4 statements reached agreement. Of the 8 topics covered, consensus was reached in 6: use of a transplant protocol, patient age, body mass index, patient compliance with treatment, cardiac workup, and use of multidisciplinary meetings. Consensus was not reached on screening for malignancy and use of peripheral Doppler studies. Conclusions. The Delphi process identified factors upon which clinicians agreed and areas where consensus could not be achieved. The findings should inform national guidelines to support decision making in the absence of high quality evidence and to guide areas that warrant future research.
Reference Key
phd2018transplantationassessing Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Sarah Tonkin-Crine, PhD;Rishi Pruthi, MBBS;Dominic M. Taylor, MbCHb;Geraldine M. Leydon, PhD;Melania Calestani, PhD;Gabriel C. Oniscu, MD;J. Andrew Bradley, PhD;Charles R. Tomson, DM;Clare Bradley, PhD;Christopher Dudley, MD;Christopher J.E. Watson, MD;Heather Draper, PhD;Rachel J. Johnson, MSc;Wendy Metcalfe, MD;Damian G. Fogarty, MD;Rommel Ravanan, MD;Paul Roderick, MD;
Journal topoi
Year 2018
DOI
10.1097/TXD.0000000000000782
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.