ReviewNature reviews. Nephrology2017
Renal and cardiac assessment of living kidney donor candidates.
Review in Nature reviews. Nephrology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors.Transplantation · 2017Guideline
- Canadian Society of Transplantation and Canadian Society of Nephrology Commentary on the 2017 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2020Article
- Few Gender Differences in Attitudes and Experiences after Live Kidney Donation, with Minor Changes Over Time.Annals of transplantation · 2017Article
- Summary of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors.Transplantation · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Living kidney donation provides the best therapeutic outcomes for eligible patients with end-stage renal disease. To ensure suitability for living kidney donation, donor candidates undergo a thorough medical, surgical, and psychosocial evaluation by a multidisciplinary transplant assessment team. Numerous guidelines are available to assist clinicians in the process of donor evaluation and selection. These guidelines outline the minimum recommended requirements for donor screening and additional tests that are indicated when abnormalities arise; however, evidence suggests that some of these additional tests might not be required in certain donor candidates. Measured glomerular filtration rate (GFR) using isotopic methods is more accurate than estimated GFR for the assessment of renal function; however, a new clinical tool might enable the identification of donor candidates for whom nuclear medicine renal scans are not needed. Persistent isolated microscopic haematuria caused by urologic or glomerular diseases can preclude donation and such abnormalities can often be identified by kidney biopsy. Cystoscopy might not be useful for young patients, however, owing to the rarity of urological cancers in this population. Currently, no evidence exists to support the notion that donor candidates at low-risk of cardiac events should undergo additional preoperative cardiovascular evaluation before donation. Reducing and/or eliminating the need for additional testing has the potential to enhance efficiency in the donor evaluation process, improve patient satisfaction, and increase access to living donor kidney transplantation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28366942What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.