Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28501297›Full record

ArticleKidney international2017

Are sensitized patients better off with a desensitization transplant or waiting on dialysis?

Philip A Clayton, P Toby Coates

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Kidney international, 2017. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Philip A ClaytonAustralia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Central Northern Adelaide Renal and Transplantation Service, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Discipline of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
P Toby CoatesCentral Northern Adelaide Renal and Transplantation Service, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Discipline of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Electronic address: Toby.Coates@sa.gov.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sensitization to human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) remains one of the major clinical challenges for successful kidney transplantation. Two large observational studies have recently addressed the question of whether individuals are better off with a desensitization treatment followed by HLA-incompatible living donor transplantation or waiting on the deceased donor kidney transplant list for a compatible transplant. The conflicting results of these 2 studies largely reflect differences in the study design and study population, leaving clinicians to make decisions about desensitization based largely on local expertise and anticipated waiting times for a compatible deceased donor transplant.

Indexed as

Kidney Failure, ChronicRenal DialysisDesensitization, ImmunologicHumansKidney TransplantationLiving DonorsWaiting Lists

Identifiers

PMID28501297

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.