Journal Information
Vol. 34. Issue. 2.March 2014
Pages 0-272
Vol. 34. Issue. 2.March 2014
Pages 0-272
DOI: 10.3265/Nefrologia.pre2014.Jan.12280
Full text access
Spanish nephrologists and the management of mineral and bone metabolism disorders in chronic kidney disease
Los nefrólogos españoles y el manejo de las alteraciones del metabolismo óseo-mineral en la enfermedad renal crónica
Visits
...
Jorge Cannata-Andíaa, J. Vicente Torregrosab
a Servicio de Metabolismo ??seo y Mineral, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo,
b Servicio de Nefrolog??a y Trasplante Renal, Hospital Cl??nic, Barcelona,
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (2)

El presente estudio fue diseñado para evaluar la percepción actual de los nefrólogos españoles en el manejo clínico de las alteraciones del metabolismo óseo y mineral en la enfermedad renal crónica (CKD-MBD). Para ello se empleó un procedimiento semiestructurado de consenso profesional a distancia, por correo electrónico (método Delphi modificado), a un panel representativo del colectivo nefrológico, bajo la dirección de un comité coordinador. Para analizar la opinión grupal y el tipo de consenso alcanzado sobre cada cuestión planteada, se empleó la posición de la mediana de puntuaciones del grupo y el «nivel de concordancia» alcanzado por los encuestados. Sobre un total de 86 cuestiones se logró un consenso en acuerdo y desacuerdo en 70 (81,4 %), de los cuales un 60,5 % (52 ítems) lo fueron en términos de acuerdo con la aseveración y un 20,9 % (18 ítems) en desacuerdo. En 16 ítems (18,6 %) no se consiguió suficiente unanimidad de criterio en el panel, bien por disparidad de opinión profesional, bien por falta de criterio establecido en una mayoría del comité de expertos. Aceptando las limitaciones del estudio, consideramos que los ítems en los que hubo consenso refuerzan algunos conceptos de CKD-MBD con su repercusión en la práctica clínica diaria y permiten valorar el grado de homogeneidad que podríamos esperar en esta área. Los ítems en los que no hubo consenso nos ayudan a conocer las áreas de incertidumbre y resultan de gran utilidad para precisar en qué aspectos existe una mayor necesidad de profundización y de emprender estudios prospectivos que permitan mejorar el manejo de estas alteraciones.

Palabras clave:
CKD-MBD
Palabras clave:
Calcimiméticos
Palabras clave:
Vitamina D
Palabras clave:
Fósforo
Palabras clave:
Calcio
Palabras clave:
Hormona paratiroidea
Palabras clave:
Método Delphi

Abstract

This study was designed to assess the current perception of Spanish nephrologists in the clinical management of mineral and bone metabolism disorders in chronic kidney disease (CKD-MBD). As such, we used a semi-structured distance professional consensus procedure via e-mail (modified Delphi method) on a representative nephrologist panel, under the direction of a coordinating committee. To analyse the group’s opinion and the type of consensus reached on each issue raised, we used the median of the group’s scores and the “level of agreement” reached by those surveyed. On a total of 86 issues, a consensus agreement and disagreement was achieved in 70 (81.4%), of which 60.5% (52 items) agreed with the statement and 20.9% (18 items) disagreed. In 16 items (18.6%), there was insufficient unanimity in the panel’s opinion, either due to professional opinion disparity or due to the lack of opinion established in the majority of the expert committee. Accepting the study’s limitations, we considered that the items for which there was a consensus reinforce some CKD-MBD concepts with their impact on daily clinical practice and allow the degree of homogeneity that we could expect in this area to be assessed. The items in which there was no consensus help us to know the areas of uncertainty and are very useful for clarifying which aspects have a greater need for further knowledge and which areas require prospective studies to be conducted to improve the management of these disorders.

Keywords:
CKD-MBD
Keywords:
Calcimimetics
Keywords:
Vitamin D
Keywords:
Phosphorus
Keywords:
Calcium
Keywords:
Parathyroid hormone
Keywords:
Delphi method
Full Text

INTRODUCTION

 

Mineral and bone metabolism disorders in chronic kidney disease (CKD-MBD) is a very dynamic field of study, which has experienced a lot of changes, especially over the last five years.

Other factors have been added to the group considered to be the “classic regulators of mineral and bone metabolism” (calcium, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone [PTH] and calcitriol), some already known, such as calcidiol, and others new, such as fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF-23) and klotho.1 Furthermore, other disorders that until recently were considered outside the area of CKD-MBD, such as vascular calcification, cardiovascular disease and bone fractures, have progressively become part of the CKD-MBD2 group.

Along with these changes and advances in the knowledge of CKD-MBD, new drugs have been marketed for controlling its disorders, which, although they potentially offer more flexibility and a fuller therapeutic range, have increased the number of question marks about their efficacy and limitations of use in daily practice.

Most of these issues have been addressed in the recent clinical practice guidelines, amongst them those of 2009 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD-MBD, which will be revised again at the end of 2013,2 and the CKD-MBD Guidelines of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (S.E.N.).3 However, there is still significant uncertainty that results in major variations in the clinical management of these disorders, and we will be exploring this area in our study.

This study was designed to assess Spanish nephrologists’ current perception of the clinical management of CKD-MBD disorders.

 

MATERIAL AND METHOD

 

To assess Spanish nephrologists’ perception of mineral and bone metabolism, we used a semi-structured remote professional consensus procedure via e-mail (modified Delphi method),4,5 allowing for contemplative and equal participation by a representative nephrologist panel. It required successive rounds of a structured survey (with closed-ended question scales), with processing and return of intermediate results to participants in order that they could confidentially compare their personal opinions with those of the other panellists.

The project was developed over four phases (Figure 1): 1) Formation of a scientific committee comprising 10 nephrologists with a special interest in the area of mineral and bone metabolism, responsible for leading the project and the task of developing a questionnaire, proposing expert panellists, analysing and interpreting the results and drawing final conclusions. 2) Selection of an expert panel: the scientific committee chose 59 nephrologists representing all regions of Spain, interested in the area of mineral and bone metabolism, who met the requirements detailed above on the basis of a pre-selection of 192 nephrologists and who worked mainly in the areas of dialysis, pre-dialysis and renal transplantation. 3) The expert panel received the survey with the statements, which they responded to via e-mail in two rounds. 4) Analysis and discussion of these results in a joint face-to-face meeting between the scientific and expert committees.

A technical team was also required, which was responsible for implementing the method, editing and distributing the first questionnaire, analysing the responses of the first round, the provisional report and distributing the second questionnaire, analysing the second questionnaires and statistical interpretation of the consensus reached.

 

Developing the questionnaire and method of response

 

We initially defined the systematic literature review and questionnaire development procedure. Each item on the questionnaire was a statement (positive or negative) on an opinion regarding CKD-MBD disorders in any aspect of interest or controversy. After reviewing and grouping the items proposed by subject, we developed a final version of the questionnaire, which included 86 items and was accepted by the scientific committee and divided into the following subject sections:

  • Phosphorus, calcium and magnesium metabolism.
  • Bone and cardiovascular system.
  • Vitamin D.
  • Calcimimetics, parathyroidectomy and associations with vitamin D.
  • Renal transplantation.

 

Assessment scale of the clinical recommendations being judged

 

In order to assess the issues, one 9-point Likert-type ordinal scale was proposed, which was similar to the conventional format (UCLA-Rand Corporation) used for comparative assessment and prioritisation of different health options (technologies, etc.).6,7 The response categories were defined using linguistic qualifiers of agreement/disagreement grouped into three regions, with the proposals presented as the following possible conclusions:

  • 1-3: I disagree with the statement (the lower the score, the higher the degree of disagreement).
  • 4-6: I neither agree nor disagree with the statement; my opinion on the issue is not fully defined (4 or 6 is selected when the respondent is closer to disagreeing or agreeing, respectively).
  • 7-9: I agree with the statement (the higher the score, the higher the degree of agreement).

The survey also offered the possibility of adding free comments to each item and a final section of new proposals for the committee to assess. For statistical purposes, unanswered statements were analysed as lost cases.

 

Analysis and interpretation of results

 

We performed a descriptive analysis of the responses using the median, mean and interquartile range with the specifications listed below. The comparisons were carried out using the mean with a 95% confidence interval. To assess the group’s opinion and the type of consensus reached on each issue raised, we used the median group score and the “level of agreement” reached by those surveyed, in accordance with the following criteria: an item was considered to be agreed upon by consensus whenever there was “concordance” of opinion within the panel. In this case, the median value determined the group consensus reached, which was based on the three aforementioned groups: majority “disagreement” with the item if the median was ≤3; majority “agreement” with the item if the median was ≥7. Cases in which the median was between 4 and 6 were considered to be “uncertain” items for the majority of the group and were not agreed upon by consensus. We established that there was “discordance” in the panel whenever the percentage of panellist responses against (those whose score was outside the region containing the median for this item) was higher than 33%. The remaining items in which we did not observe concordance or discordance were considered to have an “undetermined” level of consensus.

All the items for which the group did not achieve a clear consensus for or against the issue raised (uncertain items, those in which discordance was observed and those that showed an undetermined level of consensus) were proposed for the panel’s reconsideration in the second Delphi round (Figure 1). The items in which a significant spread of opinions was observed amongst those surveyed were also re-assessed, with an interquartile range ≥4 points (range of scores between the p25 and p75 values of the distribution).

Between both rounds, the panellists were informed of the detailed distribution of the group’s anonymous responses in the first survey (through bar graphs) and comments and clarifications contributed by each participant were provided anonymously.

After reviewing this information, we requested a new personal assessment of the items not agreed upon by consensus in the first round. After the second round of the survey, identical criteria were applied in order to distinguish the items definitively agreed upon by consensus from those in which it was not possible to homogenise the panel’s opinion. The total time in which the two rounds were carried out was two months.

For the purpose of comparing graphs between items, we calculated the panellists’ average scores for each statement with a 95% confidence interval. The more extreme the average score of an item (closer to 1 or 9), the more we considered that either an agreement or a disagreement consensus, respectively, was achieved on the proposal expressed by each item.

A smaller confidence interval was interpreted as an expression of greater unanimity of opinions in the group. The items in which no consensus was achieved after the process described was completed were analysed descriptively to distinguish whether this situation was due to discordance of opinion or due to a majority of the panel’s opinion being uncertain with respect to the item (the majority of the group said they did not have a definitive opinion; response = 4-6).

 

RESULTS

 

Out of a total of 86 statements, an agreement and disagreement consensus was achieved in 70, that is, a sufficient consensus was achieved in 81.4%, of which 60.5% (52 items) agreed with the statement and 20.9% (18 items) disagreed. In 16 items (18.6%), sufficient unanimity was not achieved in the panellist’s opinions, either due to a disparity of professional opinion, or due to the lack of opinion in a majority of the expert committee. In the first round, there was a consensus in 40 out of the 86 statements analysed (34 in agreement and 6 in disagreement). Of the 46 remaining items proposed for the experts’ reconsideration in the second round, a consensus was reached in 30 more (18 in agreement and 12 in disagreement) (Table 1). The results/conclusions detailed below group together the key aspects of this consensus.

 

Statements in which a consensus was reached

 

The 52 items agreed on by consensus can be grouped into the following 36 following points:

  • In chronic kidney disease, there is an overload in the body of phosphorus before hyperphosphataemia appears. This overload may be assessed using the fraction of phosphorus excreted.
  • A dietary restriction of phosphorus intake should be attempted whenever overload is suspected. A reasonable dietary restriction of lactoprotein (2 rations [±120g] of animal proteins and one or two of dairy products) does not lead to a risk of malnutrition and contributes to controlling mineral metabolism in dialysis patients.
  • The availability and absorption of phosphorus from animal protein and preservative intake is significantly higher than phosphorus that accompanies vegetable proteins.
  • Patients should only receive phosphate binders if phosphorus higher than normal laboratory values is detected.
  • Aluminium hydroxide continues to be the most potent binder (useful for P >6.5mg/dl) and it does not seem to be harmful when it is used over short periods of time (2-3 months).
  • Phosphate binders that contain calcium should be avoided in patients with chronic kidney disease and vascular or valvular calcification and when they are used, 1500mg of elemental calcium per day should not be exceeded.
  • The combination of magnesium carbonate and calcium acetate seems to be at least as effective as the rest of calcium binders, and, if used, serum magnesium should be monitored.
  • In patients with chronic kidney disease and either vascular or valvular calcification who have hyperphosphataemia, lanthanum or sevelamer carbonate may be used as the first choice.
  • Clinical and experimental data suggest a higher phosphate binding potency in lanthanum carbonate than in sevelamer carbonate.
  • 10. Lanthanum and sevelamer carbonate have an advantage over calcium binders in terms of survival in the subpopulation over 65 years of age.

    11. The high price of lanthanum and sevelamer carbonate may mean that they are not considered the first choice in all cases.

    12. Gastrointestinal tolerance and the degree of adherence to the prescription are very important factors when using a phosphate binder.

    13. Serum calcium does not represent the net balance of calcium intake, as overload is possible with normal calcaemia.

    14. Vascular calcifications have different consequences according to the type and location and they are a factor that contributes to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

    15. Bone and vascular mineralisation occur by similar mechanisms.

    16. The severity and progression of vascular calcifications, bone fractures and a lower bone mass are related to and associated with higher morbidity and mortality.

    17. Modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (traditional and non-traditional) should be prevented and treated at an early stage.

    18. The correction of vitamin D deficiency should be carried out at all stages of chronic kidney disease or dialysis and calcidiol levels should be 25-40ng/ml at all stages of CKD.

    19. 1,25(OH2) D3 measurement does not seem to be useful from a clinical point of view.

    20. In chronic kidney disease, the administration of vitamin D may have adverse effects both in the doses recommended by the guidelines and in high doses, and as such, there should be strict monitoring of calcium, phosphorus and creatinine.

    21. The adverse effects of vitamin D supplementation for correcting deficiency/insufficiency are the same in any stage of CKD.

    22. For calcitriol prescription in patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis, the initial dose should be 0.25 micrograms on alternate nights.

    23. In all stages of chronic kidney disease, if a phosphate binder had to be added to the administration of vitamin D metabolites, those that contain calcium should be avoided.

    24. In dialysis patients, treatment with native vitamin D or calcidiol added to treatment with active vitamin D favours hyperphosphataemia and hypercalcaemia, and this is why it is necessary to reduce the dose of both; in these cases, it seems preferable to use paricalcitol in order to reduce this risk.

    25. In relation to vitamin D use, in peritoneal dialysis the same strategy should be employed as in haemodialysis.

    26. It is important to control phosphorus levels before beginning therapies designed to act directly on the production and secretion of PTH, such as calcimimetics and/or vitamin D receptor (VDR) activators.

    27. There is an agreement on the efficacy of combining calcimimetics with VDR activators in order to reduce PTH levels. However, the choice of calcimimetics and/or VDR activators is determined by serum phosphorus and calcium values.

    28. Parathyroidectomies should be performed if PTH levels are higher than 1000pg/ml in spite of medical treatment.

    29. A simple lateral dorsolumbar x-ray should be performed in all patients who receive a kidney transplant, in order to assess the presence of vertebral fracture and test mineral and bone density.

    30. PTH and calcidiol should be tested every six months in kidney transplant patients.

    31. Kidney transplant patients should be supplemented with vitamin D, as well as the rest of the general population, in order to maintain normal serum calcidiol values.

    32. Treatment with active vitamin D or vitamin D analogues has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing bone mass loss immediately after transplantation.

    33. The continuous administration of low doses of calcium (500mg/day) and some form of vitamin D is advisable for preserving bone mass in patients with steroid doses higher than 5mg/24h.

    34. It is advisable for post-transplant hypercalcaemia secondary to persistent hyperparathyroidism to be treated with calcimimetics. If after a period of treatment with calcimimetics they are discontinued and hypercalcaemia reappears, the most appropriate attitude would be to recommence calcimimetic treatment.

    35. Calcimimetic administration should probably be maintained in transplant patients in whom their use was necessary for controlling severe secondary hyperparathyroidism before transplantation.

    36. There is no phosphate binder of choice for treating patients with a kidney transplant and deterioration of renal function who have hyperphosphataemia.

     

    Statements in which no consensus was reached

     

    The 18 items not agreed on by consensus can be summarised in the following 9 points:

  • Diabetes patients probably require differential criteria in choosing the phosphate binder, but it is not clear what this criteria should be.
  • There are serious doubts as to whether patients older than 65 at any stage of chronic kidney disease require similar doses of calcidiol as those under 65 years of age.
  • It is not clear whether the administration of native vitamin D along with active vitamin D analogues is fully justified for inhibiting the FGF-23 in the initial stages of CKD.
  • It is not clear whether in dialysis patients, whenever vitamin D is used, it should be combined with non-calcium phosphate binders.
  • The group’s responses were not homogeneous for the statement that secondary hyperparathyroidism should start to be treated whenever the level of PTH (pg/ml) is greater than 300.
  • There was no agreement with regard to whether paricalcitol or calcimimetic use is appropriate for controlling vascular calcifications whenever PTH levels are controlled.
  • There was also uncertainty with regard to whether a PTH level of less than 100 in dialysis patients means that it is necessary to use a low-calcium dialysate.
  • With regard to kidney transplant patients, there was no homogeneity on whether it is appropriate to use calcimimetics to control post-transplant hypophosphataemia, avoiding the administration of oral phosphorus, or whether dialysis patients who receive calcimimetics should maintain treatment after renal transplantation.
  • No stance was observed on when to discontinue calcimimetics in transplant patients who receive it for controlling hypercalcaemia.
  •  

    DISCUSSION

     

    To our knowledge, this is the first study designed to assess the perception of nephrologists, in this case Spanish nephrologists, in the clinical management of CKD-MBD. The study was carried out via the Internet and subsequently in a face-to-face meeting, using the modified Delphi method, which is a reliable remote consensus procedure already used in biomedical research,4,5 which avoids the difficulties and disadvantages of face-to-face discussion methods. These include travelling, bias of influence and loss of confidentiality. The main advantages offered by the Delphi method are controlled interaction between panellists, the opportunity to reflect and reconsider personal opinions without losing anonymity and statistical validation of the consensus reached.

    The Delphi method was developed in the 1950s by scientists of the Rand Corporation as a method for making informed decisions based on expert opinions.8 Since then, it has been used to assess behaviour and decision-making in various sectors,9-12 and also recently in areas of nephrology.13-19 Despite having undergone some changes, it continues to be a viable approach for compiling expert opinions through a structured iterative process in which a consensus is developed.20,21

    This process involves several interactions with participants who, in general, create two or more rounds of responses within a reasonable period of time, in our case two months. The results of first round of answers can be modified in the second round and it is even possible to propose other items based on comments from all participants.22 Furthermore, the Delphi technique offers a series of specific advantages and this is particularly useful because it avoids obstacles commonly observed in other discussion groups, such as interpersonal influence and time constraints.22-24

    With this technique, those surveyed do not know the identity of the other panellists and therefore, they are freer, with fewer personal and social limitations.21 Furthermore, they can complete the questionnaire at their own leisure and not simultaneously with the other participants.25 The Delphi method has the advantage that various techniques can be employed for its statistical analysis.26

    In our study, we achieved a high degree of consensus in the first round and observations were made that were very useful for improving or modifying some statements in the second round. At the end of the study, a consensus was achieved in most items considered; in fact, it was higher than 80%, which shows high homogeneity in the management of CKD-MBD disorders by nephrologists.

    It is important to underscore that, although some members of the scientific committee in this study and authors of this article participated in the development of the S.E.N.3 and KDIGO2 clinical practice guidelines, what they report in this study does not represent their personal opinion or their interpretation of the 86 statements issued in the survey. Their role was to objectively summarise (without influencing the final result) the consensus reached by the 59 nephrologists surveyed, following the Delphi methodology in relation to what these nephrologists, who are particularly interested in the subject, believe about managing mineral and bone metabolism. These opinions may or may not be consistent with that recommended by the clinical practice guidelines,2,3 but they are useful for communicating their degree of agreement, compliance, application and implementation in clinical practice. Therefore, the points of agreement and disagreement are a representation of the real situation and are the basis for the comments and thoughts described below in the discussion of these results.

    There was agreement on the low usefulness of serum phosphorus and calcium levels for assessing their metabolism and that as renal function deteriorated there would be an overload of phosphorus and calcium. Nevertheless, at least with phosphorus, the panel considered that phosphate binders should not be used unless serum values of the latter are above the normal range. This widespread opinion of accepting that, despite a potential phosphorus overload there is still not sufficient evidence to start treatment with phosphate binders (statements 1 to 3), indicates a prudent attitude from nephrologists towards a subject that undoubtedly requires more scientific evidence before we aim for new indications of phosphate binders.

    Furthermore, this attitude is consistent with recent results that have sparked controversy and suggest that, although in stages 3 and 4 chronic kidney disease there is a tendency towards phosphorus overload, thanks to the known compensatory phosphaturic mechanisms, mainly through FGF-23 and PTH, there would still not be significant phosphorus overload, but there would be an obvious calcium overload due to the kidney’s inability to regulate the removal of the latter as renal function decreases.27,28 Therefore, in stages 3 and 4 chronic kidney disease, the use of phosphate binders would not be indicated without hyperphosphataemia, and less still if calcium-containing binders were used, given that by avoiding a theoretical overload of phosphorus, we could aggravate rather than improve the situation, exposing patients to an unnecessary overload of calcium.28,29 In line with this last concept, we observed the importance, given in the nephrologists’ responses, to calcium overload, an aspect in which there was directly and indirectly agreement and homogeneity (statements 6 to 8 and 13 to 16) in considering it as a determinant of morbidity and mortality.

    In the two sections related to other very important aspects in the management of CKD-MBD, such as the use of nutritional vitamin D, active forms of vitamin D, calcimimetics and when it would be necessary to replace medical treatment with parathyroidectomy, in general, there were more points of agreement than of disagreement, but there are still many gaps to be filled. Amongst them, due to their involvement in the routine management of patients, it is necessary to highlight the lack of consensus on PTH values that should be used for starting pharmacological treatment and on whether there is justification for combining the use of native vitamin D with active forms of vitamin D. This lack of agreement is not surprising, given that it reflects the uncertainty (due to lack of scientific evidence) in the recommendations of some clinical practice guidelines, such as the 2009 K/DIGO CKD-MBD guidelines.2

    By contrast, there was a high degree of agreement in relation to the levels of PTH at which we should consider that there is therapeutic failure and perform a parathyroidectomy. The figure considered as the threshold was 1000pg/ml. This is consistent with that recently published by the COSMOS study, in which it was observed that Mediterranean countries consider this level to be the most appropriate, while Scandinavian countries would perform surgery with lower PTH levels of around 700pg/ml.30 If we take into account the 2009 K/DIGO CKD-MBD recommendations and the recent preliminary results of the COSMOS study (consistent with previous studies), presented by the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association31 on what PTH values should be considered acceptable, serum PTH of 700pg/ml would be a low value for indicating parathyroidectomy.

    Lastly, there were also points of agreement and disagreement in relation to CKD-MBD, renal transplantation and calcimimetics. There was a consensus on the need for post-transplant calcimimetics to be related to the severity of pre-transplant hyperparathyroidism, but not on the need for it in the management of post renal transplantation hypophosphataemia.

    To summarise, we believe that the information obtained through the Delphi consensus is practically useful, given that it describes the current situation of CKD-MBD in Spain and we have an insight into the thoughts and likely actions of Spanish nephrologists who are most closely related to the area of mineral and bone metabolism in the regular management of patients. As can be observed in the responses, this is not always consistent with that recommended by the guidelines,2,3 but it does not necessarily represent inadequate clinical practice. In some cases, it probably does, but in others, it may be a basis for reconsidering some of the recommendations and, therefore, there is a need to regularly revise the guidelines with the objective of improving them and updating them in accordance with the new evidence available.

    However, it is necessary to recognise that the consensus reached is in the context of a very specific setting and, as such, it has various limitations. Amongst them, we must highlight that it was restricted only to our country and to the group surveyed (empirically classified a priori as experts), due to their special interest in the subject, but who do not represent the overall opinion of nephrologists or of many others who did not participate because of their lesser relationship with this subject, but who also participate in the management of CKD-MBD disorders.

    Accepting the study’s limitations, we considered that the items in which there was a consensus reinforce some CKD-MBD concepts with their impact on daily clinical practice and allow the degree of homogeneity that we could expect in this area to be assessed. As already mentioned, the items in which there was not a consensus help us to know the areas of uncertainty and are very useful for specifying in which aspects there is a greater need for further understanding and for carrying out prospective studies that allow the management of CKD-MBD disorders to be improved.

    Acknowledgements

    This study was possible thanks to the logistical support of Shire Pharmaceutical Ibérica and the backing of the Spanish Society of Nephrology. The technical team responsible for implementing the method and statistical analysis was Luzan 5. 

     

    Conflicts of interest

    The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to the contents of this article.

     

     

    ADDENDUM

    Scientific committee

     

    Jorge Cannata (Coordinator)

    Hospital Central de Oviedo

    Jordi Bover 

    Fundación Puigvert. Barcelona

    Secundino Cigarrán

    Hospital da Costa Burela

    Elvira Fernández

    Hospital Arnau de Vilanova. Lérida 

    Emilio González Parra

    Hospital Fundación Jiménez Díaz. Madrid

    Víctor Lorenzo

    Hospital Universitario de Canarias. La Laguna. Tenerife

    Isabel Martínez

    Hospital de Galdakano.

    Juan Navarro

    Hospital La Candelaria. Tenerife

    Mariano Rodríguez

    Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía. Córdoba

    Jose-Vicente Torregrosa

    Hospital Clinic. Barcelona

     

     

    Expert panel

     

    Francisco José Ahijado Hormigos

    Hospital Virgen de la Salud

    Jaume Almirall

    Parc Taulí Sabadell

    Rafael Alonso Valente

    Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago de Compostela

    M.ª Luisa Amoedo Rivera

    Hospital General de Elche

    Francisco José Ariza Fuentes 

    Centro de Diálisis Fresenius Cabra (Córdoba)

    Eduardo Baamonde Laborda 

    Centro Diálisis Avericum

    Guillermina Barril 

    Hospital de la Princesa

    Sergio Bea

    Hospital La Fe

    Josep Calpe

    Diaverum Rotellar

    Antonio Crespo Navarro

    Fresenius Gandia

    Alfonso Cubas 

    Hospital de Getafe

    Antonio de Paula 

    Hospital Universitario Río Ortega

    Patricia de Sequera Ortiz 

    Hospital Infanta Leonor

    Rodrigo Delgado Zamora 

    Hospital Vírgen del Rocío

    Gloria Del Peso 

    Hospital de la Paz de Madrid

    Rafael Díaz-Tejeiro Izquierdo 

    Hospital Virgen de la Salud

    Amparo Fernández- F

    resenius Rambla marina

    Adreu Foraster- 

    Diaverum Baix Llobregat

    Antonio Galán 

    Hospital General Universitario Valencia

    César García Cantón 

    Hospital Insular de las Palmas

    Gorka García Erauzquin 

    Hospital de Cruces. Bilbao.

    Sagrario García Rebollo 

    Hospital Universitario de Canarias

    Remedios Garofanos López 

    Hospital de Torrecardenas

    José Manuel Gil Junquero 

    Hospital General Ciudad de Jaén

    Miguel Ángel González 

    Hospital Clínico Valencia

    Enrique Gruss 

    Hospital de Alcorcón

    José Antonio Herrero Calvo 

    Hospital Clínico de San Carlos

    M.ª Victoria Hidalgo Barquero 

    Hospital de Zafra

    Emma Huarte 

    Hospital San Pedro. Logroño

    María Jesús Izquierdo 

    Complejo Asistencial. Universitario de Burgos

    José Lacueva

    Alcer Liria 

    Luz Lozano 

    Hospital de Fuenlabrada

    Joaquín Manrique 

    Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra

    Rosario Moreno López

    H. Militar Zaragoza

    M.ª Antonia Munar

    Hospital Son Espasses Mallorca

    Agustín Ortega

    Asyter Albacete

    Magdalena Palomares Bayo 

    Hospital Carlos Haya

    María Parallé Alcalde 

    CMD Montequinto

    Jesús Pérez

    H. Miguel Servet

    Miguel Pérez Fontán 

    Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña

    Celestino Piñera

    Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla (Santander)

    José Luis Pizarro 

    Centro de Diálisis Diaverum Málaga

    Dolores Prados Garrido 

    Hospital San Cecilio

    Mario Prieto

    Hospital de León (León)

    Constantino Fernández Rivera 

    Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña

    Minerva Rodríguez García

    Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (Oviedo)

    Esther Romero Ramírez 

    Hospital Virgen de las Nieves

    Emilio Sánchez 

    Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (Oviedo)

    Dolores Sánchez de la Nieta García 

    Hospital General de Ciudad Real

    Olga Sánchez García 

    Hospital San Pedro de Alcántara

    Ramón Saracho 

    Hospital Santiago. Vitoria

    Rafael Selgas 

    Hospital de la Paz

    Jordi Soler

    Fresenius Reus

    Daniel Torán Montserrat 

    Hospital General de Jeréz

    Fernando Tornero Molina 

    Hospital de Arganda

    Martí Vallés

    Hospital Josep Trueta Girona

    Nicanor Vega Díaz 

    Hospital Doctor Negrín

    Borja Zalduendo 

    Hospital Donostia

    Table 1. Statistical results for the 86 statements.

    Figure 1. Delphi method flowchart. Study development diagram.

    Bibliography
    [1]
    Mej??a N, Roman-Garc??a P, Miar AB, Tavira B, Cannata-And??a JB. Chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder: a complex scenario. Nefrologia 2011;31(5):514-9. [Pubmed]
    [2]
    Moe SM, Dr??eke TB, Block GA, Cannata-And??a JB, Elder GJ, Fukagawa M, et al. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorder (CKD-MBD). Kidney Int Suppl 2009;(113):S1-130.
    [3]
    Torregrosa JV, Bover J, Cannata And??a J, Lorenzo V, de Francisco AL, Mart??nez, et al. Spanish Society of Nephrology recommendations for controlling mineral and bone disorder in chronic kidney disease patients (S.E.N.-M.B.D.).Nefrologia 2011;31 Suppl 1:3-32. [Pubmed]
    [4]
    Dalkey NC. The Delphi Method: an experimental study of group opinion. Santa Monica (California): Rand Corporation; 1969. Publication n?? RM-59999 PR.
    [5]
    Dalkey N, Brown B, Cochran S. The Delphi Method, III: use of self ratings to improve group estimates. Santa Monica (California): Rand Corporation; 1969. Publication n?? RM-6115-PR.
    [6]
    Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 1932;140:1-55.
    [7]
    Carifio J, Perla R. Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Med Educ 2008;42:1150-2. [Pubmed]
    [8]
    Cornish E. The study of the future: an introduction to the art and science of understanding and shaping tomorrow's world. Maryland: World Future Society; 1977.
    [9]
    Kelly CM, Jorm AF, Kitchener BA. Development of mental health first aid guidelines on how a member of the public can support a person affected by a traumatic event: a Delphi study. BMC Psychiatry 2010;10:49. [Pubmed]
    [10]
    Tran D, Hall LM, Davis A, Landry MD, Burnett D, Berg K, et al. Identification of recruitment and retention strategies for rehabilitation professionals in Ontario, Canada: results from expert panels. BMC Health Serv Res 2008;8:249-52.
    [11]
    Vandelanotte C, Dwyer T, Van Itallie A, Hanley C, Mummery WK. The development of an internet-based outpatient cardiac rehabilitation intervention: a Delphi study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2010;10:27-31.
    [12]
    van Stralen MM, Lechner L, Mudde AN, de Vries H, Bolman C. Determinants of awareness, initiation and maintenance of physical activity among the over-fifties: a Delphi study. Health Educ Res 2010;25(2):233-47. [Pubmed]
    [13]
    Lavergne V, Nolin TD, Hoffman RS, Roberts D, Gosselin S, Goldfarb DS, et al. The EXTRIP (EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning) workgroup: guideline methodology. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2012;50(5):403-13.
    [14]
    Lindberg M, Lundstr??m-Landegren K, Johansson P, Lid??n S, Holm U. Competencies for practice in renal care: a national Delphi study. J Ren Care 2012;38(2):69-75. [Pubmed]
    [15]
    Cant?? Quintanilla G, Reyes A, Romero Navarro B, Luque Coqui M, Rodr??guez Ortega G, Reyes R, et al. Usefulness of the Delphy method for reaching consensus in the allocation of deceased donor kidneys in six Mexican hospital. Cuad Bioet 2010;21(73):359-74. [Pubmed]
    [16]
    Himmelfarb J, Joannidis M, Molitoris B, Schietz M, Okusa MD, Warnock D, et al. Evaluation and initial management of acute kidney injury. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;3(4):962-7. [Pubmed]
    [17]
    Gibney N, Hoste E, Burdmann EA, Bunchman T, Kher V, Viswanathan R, et al. Timing of initiation and discontinuation of renal replacement therapy in AKI: unanswered key questions. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;3(3):876-80. [Pubmed]
    [18]
    Murray PT, Devarajan P, Levey AS, Eckardt KU, Bonventre JV, Lombardi R, et al. A framework and key research questions in AKI diagnosis and staging in different environments. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;3(3):864-8. [Pubmed]
    [19]
    Davenport A, Bouman C, Kirpalani A, Skippen P, Tolwani A, Mehta RL, et al. Delivery of renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury: what are the key issues? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;3(3):869-75. [Pubmed]
    [20]
    Gupta UG, Clarke RE. Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: A bibliography (1975-1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1996;53(2):185-211.
    [21]
    de Villiers MR, de Villiers PJ, Kent AP. The Delphi technique in health sciences education research. Med Teach 2005;27(7):639-43. [Pubmed]
    [22]
    Hsu C-C, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Practical Asessment Research & Evaluation. 2007. Available at: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=10
    [23]
    Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 2000;32(4):1008-15. [Pubmed]
    [24]
    Dalkey NC, Rourke DL. Experimental assessment of Delphi procedures with group value judgments. In: Dalkey NC, Rourke DL, Lewis R, Snyder D, editors. Studies in the quality of life: Delphi and decision-making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1972. pp. 55-83.
    [25]
    Bowles KH, Holmes JH, Naylor MD, Liberatore M, Nydick R. Biomedical and Health Informatics: From Foundations to Applications: 2003; Washington, DC. AMIA 2003 Symposium Proceedings; 2003. Expert Consensus for Discharge Referral Decisions Using Online Delphi. pp. 106-9.
    [26]
    Linstone HA, Turoff M. In: Linstone HA, Turoff M, editors. The Delphi method, techniques and applications. 2002. Available at: http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/
    [27]
    Langman CB, Cannata-And??a JB. Calcium in chronic kidney disease: Myths and realities. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010;5:S1-2. [Pubmed]
    [28]
    Hill KM, Martin BR, Wastney ME, McCabe GP, Moe SM, Weaver CM, et al. Oral calcium carbonate affects calcium but not phosphorus balance in stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int 2013;83:959-66. [Pubmed]
    [29]
    Block GA, Wheeler DC, Persky MS, Kestenbaum B, Ketteler M, Spiegel DM, et al. Effects of phosphate binders in moderate CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol 2012;23(8):1407-15.
    [30]
    Fernandez-Martin JL, Carrero JJ, Benedik M, Bos WJ, Covic A, Ferreira A, et al. COSMOS: the dialysis scenario of CKD-MBD in Europe. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2013;28:1922-35. [Pubmed]
    [31]
    Fern??ndez-Mart??n JL, Locatelli F, London G, Gorriz JL, Floege J, Ferreira A, et al.; on behalf of COSMOS. Cosmos: abnormalities in the main bone and mineral biochemical parameters are associated with higher risk of mortality. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2013;28 Suppl 1 (abstract). [Pubmed]
    Idiomas
    Nefrología (English Edition)

    Subscribe to our newsletter

    Article options
    Tools
    es en

    ¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

    Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

    es en
    Política de cookies Cookies policy
    Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí. To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here.