ArticleKidney international reports2025
Patient Satisfaction Following a Session With a Kidney Genetic Counselor.
Article in Kidney international reports, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Genetic counseling's impact on patients with kidney disease is understudied, despite 20% of adults with kidney disease having a monogenic cause. We sought to understand whether laboratory genetic counselors (GCs) provided a positive patient experience and increased access to genetic expertise. Methods: A 47-question survey was developed and sent to patients following a genetic information session provided by laboratory GCs employed by a genetic testing company, to review genetic results from the Renasight Results: Over 18 months, 316 responses were recorded. Overall, 92% of respondents (228/247) indicated that the genetic information session was valuable to them. Most respondents (60%, 145/244) felt they had actionable steps to take after the session, including: meeting with an extrarenal specialist for management related to the genetic diagnosis, family planning, seeing a local genetics provider, or sharing results with relatives. In addition, 78% of respondents (193/247) felt that they had sufficient information to make decisions about their health care following their session. Only 13% of patients (34/253) were aware of their access to a local GC if the genetic information session was unavailable. Conclusion: This study examined patient satisfaction following a discussion with a laboratory GC to review genetic test results for hereditary kidney disorders. This study demonstrates that laboratory GCs provide patients with increased access to genetic counseling, valuable information that helps patients and their families navigate their clinical journeys, and act as a complementary resource to providers ordering kidney genetic testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.