Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28919594›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2017

Fifteen-Year Analysis of Deceased Kidney Donation: A Single Transplant Center Experience in a Region of Northern Italy.

Vania Cuna, Giorgia Comai, Maria Cappuccilli, Olga Baraldi, Irene Capelli, Matteo De Liberali, Lorenzo Gasperoni, Diletta Conte, Matteo Ravaioli, Antonio D Pinna and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

11 authors.

Vania CunaDepartment of Experimental, Diagnostic, and Specialty Medicine (DIMES) - Nephrology, Dialysis, and Transplantation Unit, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Giorgia ComaiDepartment of Experimental, Diagnostic, and Specialty Medicine (DIMES) - Nephrology, Dialysis, and Transplantation Unit, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Maria CappuccilliDepartment of Experimental, Diagnostic, and Specialty Medicine (DIMES) - Nephrology, Dialysis, and Transplantation Unit, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Olga BaraldiDepartment of Experimental, Diagnostic, and Specialty Medicine (DIMES) - Nephrology, Dialysis, and Transplantation Unit, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Irene CapelliDepartment of Experimental, Diagnostic, and Specialty Medicine (DIMES) - Nephrology, Dialysis, and Transplantation Unit, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Matteo De LiberaliDepartment of Experimental, Diagnostic, and Specialty Medicine (DIMES) - Nephrology, Dialysis, and Transplantation Unit, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Lorenzo GasperoniDepartment of Experimental, Diagnostic, and Specialty Medicine (DIMES) - Nephrology, Dialysis, and Transplantation Unit, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Diletta ConteDepartment of Experimental, Diagnostic, and Specialty Medicine (DIMES) - Nephrology, Dialysis, and Transplantation Unit, Universita degli Studi di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Matteo RavaioliDepartment of General Surgery and Transplantation, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Antonio D PinnaDepartment of General Surgery and Transplantation, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Gaetano La MannaDepartment of Experimental, Diagnostic, and Specialty Medicine (DIMES) - Nephrology, Dialysis, and Transplantation Unit, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND The rising number of patients on waiting lists for kidney transplant and the shortage of available organs has intensified efforts to increase the number of potential donors. MATERIAL AND METHODS This study investigated changes in clinical parameters among potential deceased donors in the 15-year period between 1999 and 2013 and their impact on transplantation procedure and outcomes. A total of 1634 potential deceased donors were examined and divided into 2 groups: 707 of them identified from 1999 to 2005 (Group A), and 927 from 2006 to 2013 (Group B). RESULTS The comparison between the potential donors in Group A vs. Group B revealed an increase over time in donor age (54.6±17.2 vs. 58.8±16.3, p<0.001), a reduction in the percentage of standard donors (52.3% vs. 39.8%, p<0.001), a broader utilization of organs from expanded criteria donors, and a greater number of comorbidities, particularly cardiovascular disease and dyslipidemia. However, renal function parameters and the bioptic scores did not change significantly over the years. CONCLUSIONS These results suggest the usefulness of strategies to increase the number of potential donors suitable for organ donation, especially among elderly and marginal donors.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCadaverFemaleGraft RejectionGraft SurvivalHumansItalyKidneyKidney TransplantationLiving DonorsMaleMiddle AgedTissue and Organ HarvestingTissue and Organ ProcurementTissue Donors

Identifiers

PMID28919594
PMCPMC5616149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.