Search

BackgroundHealth information systems (HIS) are fundamental tools for the surveillance of health services, estimation of disease burden and prioritization of health resources. Several gaps in the availability of HIS for kidney disease were highlighted by the first iteration of the Global Kidney Health Atlas.MethodsAs part of its second iteration, the International Society of Nephrology conducted a cross-sectional global survey between July and October 2018 to explore the coverage and scope of HIS for kidney disease, with a focus on kidney replacement therapy (KRT).ResultsOut of a total of 182 invited countries, 154 countries responded to questions on HIS (85% response rate). KRT registries were available in almost all high-income countries, but few low-income countries, while registries for non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) or acute kidney injury (AKI) were rare. Registries in high-income countries tended to be national, in contrast to registries in low-income countries, which often operated at local or regional levels. Although cause of end-stage kidney disease, modality of KRT and source of kidney transplant donors were frequently reported, few countries collected data on patient-reported outcome measures and only half of low-income countries recorded process-based measures. Almost no countries had programs to detect AKI and practices to identify CKD-targeted individuals with diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease, rather than members of high-risk ethnic groups.ConclusionsThese findings confirm significant heterogeneity in the global availability of HIS for kidney disease and highlight important gaps in their coverage and scope, especially in low-income countries and across the domains of AKI, non-dialysis CKD, patient-reported outcomes, process-based measures and quality indicators for KRT service delivery.

BackgroundResearch indicates that cachexia is common among persons with chronic illnesses and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. However, there continues to be an absence of a uniformed disease-specific definition for cachexia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patient populations.ObjectiveThe primary objective was to identify cachexia in patients receiving haemodialysis (HD) using a generic definition and then follow up on these patients for 12 months.MethodThis was a longitudinal study of adult chronic HD patients attending two hospital HD units in the UK. Multiple measures relevant to cachexia, including body mass index (BMI), muscle mass [mid-upper arm muscle circumference (MUAMC)], handgrip strength (HGS), fatigue [Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)], appetite [Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy (FAACT)] and biomarkers [C-reactive protein (CRP), serum albumin, haemoglobin and erythropoietin resistance index (ERI)] were recorded. Baseline analysis included group differences analysed using an independent t-test, dichotomized values using the χ2 test and prevalence were reported using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 24 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Longitudinal analysis was conducted using repeated measures analysis.ResultsA total of 106 patients (30 females and 76 males) were recruited with a mean age of 67.6 years [standard deviation (SD) 13.18] and dialysis vintage of 4.92 years (SD 6.12). At baseline, 17 patients were identified as cachectic, having had reported weight loss (e.g. >5% for >6 months) or BMI

In the originally published version of thismanuscript, amendments made during the proofing stage were not applied and have been listed in this erratum. Upon the original publication, there was an error in the spelling of author Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh’s surname. Upon the original publication, the ORCID ID for authors Andrew Davenport and Helen Noble were incorrectly added to the author list. These have now been deleted. Upon the original publication, the Twitter handle of some authors were added to the Corresponding author information in error. These have now been deleted. Upon the original publication, the following sentence in the “Results” line in the Abstract should read: “A total of 106 patients (30 females and 76 males) were recruited with a mean age of 67.6 years.”. Upon the original publication, the “Materials andMethods” section had the following errors: In the first paragraph, the following sentence should read: “...between September 2017 and April 2019.”. In the second paragraph, the following sentence should read: “A single researcher carried out all assessments.”. Under the “Musclemass (MUAMC)” heading, the following sentence should read: “Suitable cut-point values designated the 5th percentile as an appropriate cut-point for lowMUAMC using normative values (i.e. 5mg/L.”. Upon the original publication, the following text in the Funding section should read: “Public Health Agency Northern Ireland”. Upon the original publication, within the reference section, the following citation (11) should refer to: “StosovicM, StanojevicM, Sanja Simic-Ogrizovic S, et al. The predictive value of anthropometric parameters onmortality in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011; 26: 1367–1374.”. These errors have now been corrected online. The publisher apologizes for the errors.

ObjectivesThe Global Kidney Health Atlas (GKHA) is a multinational, cross-sectional survey designed to assess the current capacity for kidney care across all world regions. The 2017 GKHA involved 125 countries and identified significant gaps in oversight, funding and infrastructure to support care for patients with kidney disease, especially in lower-middle-income countries. Here, we report results from the survey for the second iteration of the GKHA conducted in 2018, which included specific questions about health financing and oversight of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) care worldwide.SettingA cross-sectional global survey.ParticipantsKey stakeholders from 182 countries were invited to participate. Of those, stakeholders from 160 countries participated and were included.Primary outcomesPrimary outcomes included cost of kidney replacement therapy (KRT), funding for dialysis and transplantation, funding for conservative kidney management, extent of universal health coverage, out-of-pocket costs for KRT, within-country variability in ESKD care delivery and oversight systems for ESKD care. Outcomes were determined from a combination of desk research and input from key stakeholders in participating countries.Results160 countries (covering 98% of the world's population) responded to the survey. Economic factors were identified as the top barrier to optimal ESKD care in 99 countries (64%). Full public funding for KRT was more common than for conservative kidney management (43% vs 28%). Among countries that provided at least some public coverage for KRT, 75% covered all citizens. Within-country variation in ESKD care delivery was reported in 40% of countries. Oversight of ESKD care was present in all high-income countries but was absent in 13% of low-income, 3% of lower-middle-income, and 10% of upper-middle-income countries.ConclusionSignificant gaps and variability exist in the public funding and oversight of ESKD care in many countries, particularly for those in low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

Rationale & objectiveApproximately 11% of people with kidney failure worldwide are treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD). This study examined PD use and practice patterns across the globe.Study designA cross-sectional survey.Setting & participantsStakeholders including clinicians, policy makers, and patient representatives in 182 countries convened by the International Society of Nephrology between July and September 2018.OutcomesPD use, availability, accessibility, affordability, delivery, and reporting of quality outcome measures.Analytical approachDescriptive statistics.ResultsResponses were received from 88% (n=160) of countries and there were 313 participants (257 nephrologists [82%], 22 non-nephrologist physicians [7%], 6 other health professionals [2%], 17 administrators/policy makers/civil servants [5%], and 11 others [4%]). 85% (n=156) of countries responded to questions about PD. Median PD use was 38.1 per million population. PD was not available in 30 of the 156 (19%) countries responding to PD-related questions, particularly in countries in Africa (20/41) and low-income countries (15/22). In 69% of countries, PD was the initial dialysis modality for≤10% of patients with newly diagnosed kidney failure. Patients receiving PD were expected to pay 1% to 25% of treatment costs, and higher (>75%) copayments (out-of-pocket expenses incurred by patients) were more common in South Asia and low-income countries. Average exchange volumes were adequate (defined as 3-4 exchanges per day or the equivalent for automated PD) in 72% of countries. PD quality outcome monitoring and reporting were variable. Most countries did not measure patient-reported PD outcomes.LimitationsLow responses from policy makers; limited ability to provide more in-depth explanations underpinning outcomes from each country due to lack of granular data; lack of objective data.ConclusionsLarge inter- and intraregional disparities exist in PD availability, accessibility, affordability, delivery, and reporting of quality outcome measures around the world, with the greatest gaps observed in Africa and South Asia.

Rationale & objectiveHemodialysis (HD) is the most common form of kidney replacement therapy. This study aimed to examine the use, availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality of HD care worldwide.Study designA cross-sectional survey.Setting & participantsStakeholders (clinicians, policy makers, and consumer representatives) in 182 countries were convened by the International Society of Nephrology from July to September 2018.OutcomesUse, availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality of HD care.Analytical approachDescriptive statistics.ResultsOverall, representatives from 160 (88%) countries participated. Median country-specific use of maintenance HD was 298.4 (IQR, 80.5-599.4) per million population (pmp). Global median HD use among incident patients with kidney failure was 98.0 (IQR, 81.5-140.8) pmp and median number of HD centers was 4.5 (IQR, 1.2-9.9) pmp. Adequate HD services (3-4 hours 3 times weekly) were generally available in 27% of low-income countries. Home HD was generally available in 36% of high-income countries. 32% of countries performed monitoring of patient-reported outcomes; 61%, monitoring of small-solute clearance; 60%, monitoring of bone mineral markers; 51%, monitoring of technique survival; and 60%, monitoring of patient survival. At initiation of maintenance dialysis, only 5% of countries used an arteriovenous access in almost all patients. Vascular access education was suboptimal, funding for vascular access procedures was not uniform, and copayments were greater in countries with lower levels of income. Patients in 23% of the low-income countries had to pay >75% of HD costs compared with patients in only 4% of high-income countries.LimitationsA cross-sectional survey with possibility of response bias, social desirability bias, and limited data collection preventing in-depth analysis.ConclusionsIn summary, findings reveal substantial variations in global HD use, availability, accessibility, quality, and affordability worldwide, with the lowest use evident in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

BackgroundShared decision making may be particularly complex for the older patient with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), in part because of family involvement. Nephrologists' perspectives on the family's role in ESRD decision making have not been explored.Study designSemi-structured, individual, qualitative interviews.Setting & participantsPracticing US and English adult nephrologists.MethodologyParticipants were purposively sampled based on age, race, sex, geographic location, and practice type. Each was asked about his or her perspectives and experiences related to foregoing and withdrawing dialysis therapy.Analytical approachInterviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using narrative and thematic analysis.ResultsWe conducted 59 semi-structured interviews with nephrologists from the United States (n = 41) and England (n = 18). Most participants were 45 years or younger, men, and white. Average number of years since completing nephrology training was 14.2 (SD, 11.6). Nephrologists in both countries identified how patients' families may act to facilitate or impede decisions to forego and withdraw dialysis therapy, which fell within the following subthemes: (1) emotional response to decision making, (2) involvement in patient health care/awareness of illness, (3) trust in physician, and (4) acceptance of patient wishes. Only US nephrologists raised families' financial dependence on patients as an impediment to foregoing or withdrawing dialysis therapy.LimitationsParticipants' views may not fully capture those of all US or English nephrologists.ConclusionsNephrologists in the United States and England identified several ways that patients' families help and hinder ESRD decision making in keeping with patient prognosis and preferences. Nephrologists should hone their communication skills to better navigate these interactions.

ObjectiveTo determine the global capacity (availability, accessibility, quality, and affordability) to deliver kidney replacement therapy (dialysis and transplantation) and conservative kidney management.DesignInternational cross sectional survey.SettingInternational Society of Nephrology (ISN) survey of 182 countries from July to September 2018.ParticipantsKey stakeholders identified by ISN's national and regional leaders.Main outcome measuresMarkers of national capacity to deliver core components of kidney replacement therapy and conservative kidney management.ResultsResponses were received from 160 (87.9%) of 182 countries, comprising 97.8% (7338.5 million of 7501.3 million) of the world's population. A wide variation was found in capacity and structures for kidney replacement therapy and conservative kidney management-namely, funding mechanisms, health workforce, service delivery, and available technologies. Information on the prevalence of treated end stage kidney disease was available in 91 (42%) of 218 countries worldwide. Estimates varied more than 800-fold from 4 to 3392 per million population. Rwanda was the only low income country to report data on the prevalence of treated disease; 5 (

There are an estimated 14,000 randomized trials published in chronic kidney disease. The most frequently reported outcomes are biochemical endpoints, rather than clinical and patient-reported outcomes including cardiovascular disease, mortality, and quality of life. While many trials have focused on optimizing kidney health, the heterogeneity and uncertain relevance of outcomes reported across trials may limit their policy and practice impact. The international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) Initiative was formed to identify core outcomes that are critically important to patients and health professionals, to be reported consistently across trials. We convened a SONG Implementation Workshop to discuss the implementation of core outcomes. Eighty-two patients/caregivers and health professionals participated in plenary and breakout discussions. In this report, we summarize the findings of the workshop in two main themes: socializing the concept of core outcomes, and demonstrating feasibility and usability. We outline implementation strategies and pathways to be established through partnership with stakeholders, which may bolster acceptance and reporting of core outcomes in trials, and encourage their use by end-users such as guideline producers and policymakers to help improve patient-important outcomes.

The Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Prognosis Consortium is a collaborative author of the above-mentioned article. The CKD Prognosis Consortium investigators/collaborators are as follows: • African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK): Brad Astor, Lawrence J. Appel; Canadian Study of Prediction of Death, Dialysis and Interim Cardiovascular Events (CanPREDDICT): Adeera Levin, Mila Tang, Ognjenka Djurdjev; Cleveland Clinic CKD Registry Study (CCF): Sankar D. Navaneethan, Stacey E. Jolly, Jesse D. Schold, Joseph V. Nally Jr.; Chronic Renal Impairment in Birmingham (CRIB): David C. Wheeler, Jonathan Emberson, John Townend, Martin Landray; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort Study (CRIC): Harold I. Feldman, Chi-yuan Hsu, James P. Lash, Lawrence J. Appel; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Standards Implementation Study (CRISIS): Philip A. Kalra, James P. Ritchie, Raman Maharajan, Rachel J. Middleton, Donal J. O'Donoghue; German Chronic Kidney Disease Study (GCKD): Kai-Uwe Eckardt, Markus P. Schneider, Anna Köttgen, Florian Kronenberg, Barbara Bärthlein; Geisinger Health System: Alex R. Chang, Jamie A. Green, H. Lester Kirchner, Kevin Ho; Grampian Laboratory Outcomes, Morbidity and Mortality Studies – 2 (GLOMMS2): Angharad Marks, Corri Black, Gordon J. Prescott, Nick Fluck; Gonryo Study: Masaaki Nakayama, Mariko Miyazaki, Tae Yamamoto, Gen Yamada; Hong Kong CKD Studies: Angela Yee-Moon Wang, Sharon Cheung, Sharon Wong, Jessie Chu, Henry Wu; Ontario Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Provincial Kidney, Dialysis and Transplantation program (ICES KDT): Amit X. Garg, Eric McArthur, Danielle M. Nash; Maccabi Health System: Varda Shalev, Gabriel Chodick; Multifactorial Approach and Superior Treatment Efficacy in Renal Patients with the Aid of a Nurse Practitioner (MASTERPLAN): Peter J. Blankestijn, Jack F.M. Wetzels, Arjan D. van Zuilen, Jan A. van den Brand; Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD): Andrew S. Levey, Lesley A. Inker, Mark J. Sarnak, Hocine Tighiouart; Nanjing CKD Network Cohort Study (Nanjing CKD): Haitao Zhang; NephroTest Study (NephroTest): Benedicte Stengel, Marie Metzger, Martin Flamant, Pascal Houillier, Jean-Philippe Haymann; National Renal Healthcare Program – Uruguay (NRHP-URU): Pablo G. Rios, Nelson Mazzuchi, Liliana Gadola, Verónica Lamadrid, Laura Sola; New Zealand Diabetes Cohort Study (NZDCS): John F. Collins, C. Raina Elley, Timothy Kenealy; Parcours de Soins des Personnes Agées (PSPA): Olivier Moranne, Cecile Couchoud, Cecile Vigneau; Primary-Secondary Care Partnership to Prevent Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease (PSP CKD): Nigel J. Brunskill, Rupert W. Major, David Shepherd, James F. Medcalf; Racial and Cardiovascular Risk Anomalies in CKD Cohort (RCAV): Csaba P. Kovesdy, Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, Miklos Z. Molnar, Keiichi Sumida, Praveen K. Potukuchi; Reduction of Endpoints in Non-insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL): Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Dick de Zeeuw, Barry Brenner; Stockholm CREAtinine Measurements Cohort (SCREAM): Juan Jesus Carrero, Alessandro Gasparini, Abdul Rashid Qureshi, Carl-Gustaf Elinder; Second Manifestations of ARTerial Disease Study (SMART): Frank L.J. Visseren, Yolanda van der Graaf; Swedish Renal Registry CKD Cohort (SRR CKD): Marie Evans, Maria Stendahl, Staffan Schön, Mårten Segelmark, Karl-Göran Prütz; Sunnybrook Cohort: David M. Naimark, Navdeep Tangri; West of Scotland CKD Study: Patrick B. Mark, Jamie P. Traynor, Colin C. Geddes, Peter C. Thomson.• CKD Prognosis Consortium Steering Committee: Alex R. Chang, Josef Coresh (Chair), Ron T. Gansevoort, Morgan E. Grams, Anna Köttgen, Andrew S. Levey, Kunihiro Matsushita, Mark Woodward, Luxia Zhang.• CKD Prognosis Consortium Data Coordinating Center: Shoshana H. Ballew (Assistant Project Director), Jingsha Chen (Programmer), Josef Coresh (Principal Investigator), Morgan E. Grams (Director of Nephrology Initiatives), Lucia Kwak (Programmer), Kunihiro Matsushita (Director), Yingying Sang (Lead Programmer), Aditya Surapaneni (Programmer), Mark Woodward (Senior Statistician).• Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference on Prognosis and Optimal Management of Patients with Advanced CKD: Kai-Uwe Eckardt (Conference Co-Chair), Brenda R. Hemmelgarn (Conference Co-Chair), David C. Wheeler (KDIGO Co-Chair), Wolfgang C. Winkelmayer (KDIGO Co-Chair), John Davis (CEO), Danielle Green (Managing Director), Michael Cheung (Chief Scientific Officer), Tanya Green (Communications Director), Melissa McMahan (Programs Director).

Patients with severely decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (i.e., chronic kidney disease [CKD] G4+) are at increased risk for kidney failure, cardiovascular disease (CVD) events (including heart failure), and death. However, little is known about the variability of outcomes and optimal therapeutic strategies, including initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organized a Controversies Conference with an international expert group in December 2016 to address this gap in knowledge. In collaboration with the CKD Prognosis Consortium (CKD-PC) a global meta-analysis of cohort studies (n = 264,515 individuals with CKD G4+) was conducted to better understand the timing of clinical outcomes in patients with CKD G4+ and risk factors for different outcomes. The results confirmed the prognostic value of traditional CVD risk factors in individuals with severely decreased GFR, although the risk estimates vary for kidney and CVD outcomes. A 2- and 4-year model of the probability and timing of kidney failure requiring KRT was also developed. The implications of these findings for patient management were discussed in the context of published evidence under 4 key themes: management of CKD G4+, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of heart failure, shared decision-making, and optimization of clinical trials in CKD G4+ patients. Participants concluded that variable prognosis of patients with advanced CKD mandates individualized, risk-based management, factoring in competing risks and patient preferences.

BackgroundDespite a growing body of literature suggesting that dialysis does not confer morbidity or mortality benefits for all patients with chronic kidney failure, the initiation and continuation of dialysis therapy in patients with poor prognosis is commonplace. Our goal was to elicit nephrologists' perspectives on factors that affect decision making regarding end-stage renal disease.Study designSemistructured, individual, qualitative interviews.MethodologyParticipants were purposively sampled based on age, race, sex, geographic location, and practice type. Each was asked about his or her perspectives and experiences related to foregoing and withdrawing dialysis therapy.Analytical approachInterviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using narrative and thematic analysis.ResultsWe conducted 59 semistructured interviews with nephrologists from the United States (n=41) and England (n=18). Most participants were 45 years or younger, men, and white. Average time since completing nephrology training was 14.2±11.6 (SD) years. Identified system-level facilitators and barriers for foregoing and withdrawing dialysis therapy stemmed from national and institutional policies and structural factors, how providers practice medicine (the culture of medicine), and beliefs and behaviors of the public (societal culture). In both countries, the predominant barriers described included lack of training in end-of-life conversations and expectations for aggressive care among non-nephrologists and the general public. Primary differences included financial incentives to dialyze in the United States and widespread outpatient conservative management programs in England.LimitationsParticipants' views may not fully capture those of all American or English nephrologists.ConclusionsNephrologists in the United States and England identified several system-level factors that both facilitated and interfered with decision making around foregoing and withdrawing dialysis therapy. Efforts to expand facilitators while reducing barriers could lead to care practices more in keeping with patient prognosis.

There are major gaps between our growing knowledge of effective treatments for chronic kidney disease (CKD), and the delivery of evidence-based therapies to populations around the world. Although there remains a need for new, effective therapies, current evidence suggests that many patients with CKD are yet to fully realize the benefits of blood pressure-lowering drugs (with and without reducing proteinuria with renin-angiotensin system blockade), wider use of statins to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events, and better glycemic control in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. There are many barriers to optimizing evidence-based nephrology care around the world, including access to health care, affordability of treatments, consumer attitudes and circumstances, the dissemination of appropriate knowledge, the availability of expertise and structural impediments in the delivery of health care. Further investment in implementation science that addresses the major barriers to effective care in a cost-effective manner could yield both local and global benefits.

BackgroundInconsistencies in outcome reporting and frequent omission of patient-centered outcomes can diminish the value of trials in treatment decision making. We identified critically important outcome domains in kidney transplantation based on the shared priorities of patients/caregivers and health professionals.MethodsIn a 3-round Delphi survey, patients/caregivers and health professionals rated the importance of outcome domains for trials in kidney transplantation on a 9-point Likert scale and provided comments. During rounds 2 and 3, participants rerated the outcomes after reviewing their own score, the distribution of the respondents' scores, and comments. We calculated the median, mean, and proportion rating 7 to 9 (critically important), and analyzed comments thematically.ResultsOne thousand eighteen participants (461 [45%] patients/caregivers and 557 [55%] health professionals) from 79 countries completed round 1, and 779 (77%) completed round 3. The top 8 outcomes that met the consensus criteria in round 3 (mean, ≥7.5; median, ≥8; proportion, >85%) in both groups were graft loss, graft function, chronic rejection, acute rejection, mortality, infection, cancer (excluding skin), and cardiovascular disease. Compared with health professionals, patients/caregivers gave higher priority to 6 outcomes (mean difference of 0.5 or more): skin cancer, surgical complications, cognition, blood pressure, depression, and ability to work. We identified 5 themes: capacity to control and inevitability, personal relevance, debilitating repercussions, gaining awareness of risks, and addressing knowledge gaps.ConclusionsGraft complications and severe comorbidities were critically important for both stakeholder groups. These stakeholder-prioritized outcomes will inform the core outcome set to improve the consistency and relevance of trials in kidney transplantation.

In this special issue, each author addresses how arts-based educational research (ABER) work connects with and/or directly addresses society's need/s and the public good as perceived by the researcher. As there are many construals of the "public good" and the relation to art-making and the arts to this "public good," each author will conceptualize her/his vision of the "public good" and its relationship to ABER. While the invitation to "address how ABER work connects with and/or directly addresses society's need/s and the public good", seems, at first, straightforward, on reflection, it is complex and complicated in nature. The nature of this invitation, then, is the subject of this paper. The paper is speculative in nature. Donal O'Donoghue argues that this invitation should be both cautiously welcomed and keenly resisted. Two questions of importance to consider as to how ABER might function as a public good are: (1) How are arts-based educational researchers prepared to do ABER work; and (2) How are conditions created for diverse audiences to access the work of ABER and build meaningful relations with it.

Evidence-informed decision making in clinical care and policy in nephrology is undermined by trials that selectively report a large number of heterogeneous outcomes, many of which are not patient centered. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Initiative convened an international consensus workshop on November 7, 2015, to discuss the identification and implementation of a potential core outcome set for all trials in hemodialysis. The purpose of this article is to report qualitative analyses of the workshop discussions, describing the key aspects to consider when establishing core outcomes in trials involving patients on hemodialysis therapy. Key stakeholders including 8 patients/caregivers and 47 health professionals (nephrologists, policymakers, industry, and researchers) attended the workshop. Attendees suggested that identifying core outcomes required equitable stakeholder engagement to ensure relevance across patient populations, flexibility to consider evolving priorities over time, deconstruction of language and meaning for conceptual consistency and clarity, understanding of potential overlap and associations between outcomes, and an assessment of applicability to the range of interventions in hemodialysis. For implementation, they proposed that core outcomes must have simple, inexpensive, and validated outcome measures that could be used in clinical care (quality indicators) and trials (including pragmatic trials) and endorsement by regulatory agencies. Integrating these recommendations may foster acceptance and optimize the uptake and translation of core outcomes in hemodialysis, leading to more informative research, for better treatment and improved patient outcomes.

The purpose of this article is to invite focused discussion and critical debate about the instruments currently used to select students for art colleges in Europe and North America. At this time of significant expansion and diversification in practices of art making, we must ask if current selection instruments still work. What evidence is there to support their continued use? Are they good indicators of success in art college? Who do they advantage, and whose interests do they serve? In what ways do they contribute to, or legitimate class reproduction and class advantage in the cultural sphere? In taking up these questions, this article addresses four topics of particular relevance to the selection and admission debate: reliability, validity, predictability and equality. It reports findings from two national longitudinal research studies that examined the predictive validity of selection instruments in relation to performance in art college in Ireland. While these findings are specific to the Irish higher education context, they have relevance beyond this context given that the selection instruments used by Irish art colleges are the same as those used by the majority of art colleges across Europe and North America. (Contains 3 tables and 7 notes.)

Chronic kidney disease is now recognized to be a worldwide problem associated with significant morbidity and mortality and there is a steep increase in the number of patients reaching end-stage renal disease. In many parts of the world, the disease affects younger people without diabetes or hypertension. The costs to family and society can be enormous. Early recognition of CKD may help prevent disease progression and the subsequent decline in health and longevity. Surveillance programs for early CKD detection are beginning to be implemented in a few countries. In this article, we will focus on the challenges and successes of these programs with the hope that their eventual and widespread use will reduce the complications, deaths, disabilities, and economic burdens associated with CKD worldwide.

In this article, I consider ways in which the concept of "proximity" can be put to work to understand how gendering occurs in the conduct of gender research--the theme of this special issue. If we accept that researchers are always already inside and implicated in the issues into which they inquire, and that they simultaneously establish an outside position which enables them to notice patterns, make inferences, and develop understandings, then we can say that researchers are always in proximity to something, and that this proximity, inherited or otherwise, places objects, capacities, and understandings within their reach, while also permitting them to extend their reach. In this article, I consider what happens in gender research contexts when researchers register certain proximities, fail to see others, or deny those that make them uncomfortable. Framed by my ongoing research into place cultures in boys' schools, I argue that thinking gender research practices with the concept of "proximity" pushes researchers to think beyond essentializing accounts of how they gender and are gendered in doing gender research. (Contains 1 note.)

Two artists involved in "socially engaged art" practice were invited to work with art education teacher candidates and instructors in an effort to rethink notions of teaching, learning and art. We initiated this residency, which we called "The Summerhill Residency", to examine how learning encounters might create environments for meaningful exchanges between the ways in which artists and secondary art education teacher candidates learn to think about pedagogy and the nature of artistic learning. Drawing upon Bourriaud's theory of relational aesthetics, we consider, yet trouble, the relational aspects of the processes and products of the artist residency, and examine the crisis of imagination that permeated teacher candidates' experiences. Throughout the project, a/r/tography offered a rich form of living enquiry that opened up possibilities for learning within a community of enquirers. (Contains 3 notes and 7 figures.)

This paper suggests a new way of working with and analysing school photographs in history of education research, especially photographs of school classrooms. It advances a new methodological approach for inquiring into the spatiality and materiality of schooling. This approach is located in the practice of installation art and draws from the theory of relational aesthetics and postproduction. As demonstrated in the paper, thinking about school spaces and places as installations, and place-making practices as a form of installation making, presents opportunities for posing new and different types of research questions. It also provides opportunities for generating new inquiry and representational practices in educational research. Conceptualising school spaces and places as installations that demand spectator participation to function as intended requires educational researchers to think critically about the spatial dimensions of educational experiences and the experiences of place in educational contexts. (Contains 4 figures and 32 footnotes.)

This article examines if and to what extent a set of pre-enrolment variables and background characteristics predict first year performance in art college. The article comes from a four-year longitudinal study that followed a cohort of tertiary art entrants in Ireland from their time of entry in 2002 to their time of exit in 2006 (or before, for those who failed or dropped out). Using descriptive and inferential statistics, the article shows that portfolio score at entry and school leaving examination results predict performance in first year. The predictive validity of both measures, however, was not particularly strong. Combined, portfolio score at entry and school leaving examination only accounted for 15.5 per cent of variance in first year marks, leaving a large percentage of variance unexplained.

Arts-based researchers distinguish themselves from other qualitative researchers on the grounds that they use artistic processes and practices in their inquiries and in the communication of their research outcomes. Like artists, they operate out of a particular community of practice, with its own distinctive history of emergence, set of responsibilities, and criteria for evaluation. Given the epistemological roots of arts-based research, it is argued in this article that arts-based researchers cannot ignore the processes and practices of artists as they continue to develop and theorize a counter-hegemonic research discourse and practice to the logical rational scientific one so embedded in educational inquiry. Attending critically to artists' practices, as this article demonstrates, raises many and difficult questions about doing research in, with, and through the arts. Given that arts-based research is a long-term project, these questions need to be addressed for what they might mean for the practice of arts-based research. (Contains 5 figures and 8 footnotes.)