Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24429900›Full record

ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2014

Machine perfusion in solid organ transplantation: where is the benefit?

Helge Bruns, Peter Schemmer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. What's new in clinical solid organ transplantation by 2013.World journal of transplantation · 2014
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Helge BrunsDepartment of General and Transplant Surgery, Ruprecht Karls University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Peter Schemmer
Heidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine perfusion (MP) in solid organ transplantation has been a topic of variable importance for decades. At the dawn of organ transplantation, MP was one of the standard techniques for preservation; today's gold standard for organ preservation for transplantation is cold storage (CS). The outcome after transplantation of solid organs has tremendously improved over the last five decades. MP has been continuously under investigation and may be an option for organ preservation in selected cases; however, there is only little evidence from clinical trials that can be used to advocate for MP as a routine organ preservation method.

methodsThis article reviews the current knowledge on MP in the field of solid organ transplantation with special focus on findings from clinical trials.

conclusionEspecially in heart and lung transplantation, MP seems to be a promising tool to improve postoperative outcome, but a general evidence-based recommendation for or against an application of MP cannot be given due to the lack of the highest level of clinical evidence. Gold standards such as CS should not be left behind without good reason. Randomized clinical trials are desperately needed to further improve outcome and for better understanding of the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms.

Indexed as

Organ TransplantationClinical Trials as TopicGraft SurvivalHumansOrgan PreservationOrgan Preservation SolutionsPerfusionOrgan Preservation Solutions

Identifiers

PMID24429900
OpenAlexW1999045374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.