Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29798972›Full record

ArticleAnnals of transplantation2018

Usefulness of Pancreas Donor Risk Index and Pre-Procurement Pancreas Allocation Suitability Score: Results of the Polish National Study.

Kaja Śmigielska, Paweł Skrzypek, Jarosław Czerwiński, Grzegorz Michalak, Marek Durlik, Tadeusz Grochowiecki, Sławomir Nazarewski, Jacek Szmidt, Jacek Ziaja, Robert Król and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of transplantation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Utilization of the Pancreas From Donors With an Extremely High Pancreas Donor Risk Index: Report of the National Registry of Pancreas Transplantation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kaja ŚmigielskaDepartment of General, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, The Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Paweł SkrzypekDepartment of General and Transplantation Surgery, The Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Jarosław CzerwińskiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Grzegorz MichalakDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Marek DurlikDepartment of Gastroenterological and Transplantation Surgery, Central MSW Hospital, Warsaw, Poland.
Tadeusz GrochowieckiDepartment of General, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, The Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Sławomir NazarewskiDepartment of General, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, The Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Jacek SzmidtDepartment of General, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, The Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Jacek ZiajaDepartment of General, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, Silesian Medical University, Katowice, Poland.
Robert KrólDepartment of General, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, Silesian Medical University, Katowice, Poland.
Lech CierpkaDepartment of General, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, Silesian Medical University, Katowice, Poland.
Wojciech LisikDepartment of General and Transplantation Surgery, The Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Maciej KosieradzkiDepartment of General and Transplantation Surgery, The Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Medical University of Warsaw · PLMedical University of Silesia · PLCentral Clinical Hospital · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Pre-procurement pancreas suitability score (P-PASS) and pancreas donor risk (PDRI) index are scoring systems believed to predict suitability of pancreatic grafts. Most European countries and the United States apply PDRI, while Poltransplant keeps using P-PASS: more than 16 points raises a red flag for graft use. Recent data discourage use of PDRI to predict pancreas graft survival. The aim of the present study was to assess PDRI and P-PASS as predictors of transplanted pancreas survival in a Polish population. MATERIAL AND METHODS From February 1998 to September 2015, 407 pancreas transplantations were performed in Poland: 370 (90.9%) simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation and 37 (9.1%) pancreas transplantation alone or pancreas after kidney. The endpoint was death-uncensored 12-month graft survival with satisfactory glycemic control without insulin. RESULTS Average P-PASS was 15.9±2.66 and PDRI was 0.96±0.37. Recipients who survived 12 months with good graft function had an average P-PASS score of 15.7 and PDRI of 0.95. Recipients with death-uncensored graft loss had a mean P-PASS of 16.4 and PDRI of 0.99. Univariate analysis revealed donor age, body mass index (BMI), and P-PASS to be significant risk factors for 1-year pancreas graft survival. CONCLUSIONS P-PASS, but not PDRI, is a reliable tool to predict pancreas graft survival in the Polish population.

Indexed as

Graft SurvivalTissue and Organ ProcurementTissue DonorsAdultDonor SelectionFemaleHealth SurveysHumansMalePancreas TransplantationPolandRisk FactorsTransplant RecipientsTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29798972
PMCPMC6248280
OpenAlexW2804414420

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.