Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30053337›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons2019

Comparing Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients posttransplant program-specific outcome ratings at listing with subsequent recipient outcomes after transplant.

Andrew Wey, Nicholas Salkowski, Bertram L Kasiske, Melissa Skeans, Cory R Schaffhausen, Sally K Gustafson, Ajay K Israni, Jon J Snyder

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, 2019. 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. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Andrew WeyScientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Nicholas SalkowskiScientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Bertram L KasiskeScientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Melissa SkeansScientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Cory R SchaffhausenDepartment of Medicine, Hennepin Healthcare Systems, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Sally K GustafsonScientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Ajay K IsraniScientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Jon J SnyderScientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

Creating a patient-centered report card for solid organ transplant candidatesR01HS024527 · AHRQ · HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI ISRANI, AJAY K · 2016 to 2020
$1.3M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS024527HRSA HHS HHSH250201500009C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To improve accessibility of program-specific reports to patients, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients released a 5-tier system for categorizing 1-year posttransplant program evaluations. Whether this system predicts subsequent posttransplant outcomes at the time patients are waitlisted has been questioned. We investigated the association of tier at listing and the corresponding continuous score used for tier assignment, which ranges from 0 (poor outcomes) to 1 (good outcomes), with eventual 1-year posttransplant graft survival for candidates listed between July 12, 2011, and June 16, 2014, who underwent transplant before December 31, 2016. One additional tier at listing was associated with better 1-year posttransplant outcomes in liver (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-0.97) and lung transplant (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97) but not kidney (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.01) or heart transplant (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.93-1.10). In liver and lung transplant, longer time between listing and transplant was associated with stronger protective effects for high-tier programs. In kidney, liver, and lung transplant, posttransplant evaluations at listing had nonlinear associations with eventual posttransplant outcomes: relatively flat for 5-tier scores <0.5 and decreasing for scores >0.5. After adjustment for measured recipient and donor risk factors, posttransplant evaluations at listing predicted differences in eventual outcomes in liver and lung transplant, providing useful information to patients.

Indexed as

Graft SurvivalPostoperative ComplicationsAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGraft RejectionHeart TransplantationHumansKidney TransplantationLung TransplantationMalePrognosisRegistriesRisk FactorsTransplant Recipientshealth services and outcomes researchorgan transplantation in generalScientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR)statistics

Identifiers

PMID30053337
PMCPMC6836690

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.