ArticleTransplantation direct2018
The Efficiency of Evaluating Candidates for Living Kidney Donation: A Scoping Review.
Article in Transplantation direct, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Flow of Living Kidney Donor Candidates Through the Evaluation Process: A Single-Center Experience in Ontario, Canada.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2025Article
- Expanding Opportunities for Living Donation: Recommendations From the 2023 Santander Summit to Ensure Donor Protections, Informed Decision Making, and Equitable Access.Transplantation · 2025Review
- Implementation of a 1-Day Living Kidney Donor Evaluation Program: A Qualitative Analysis of Donor Candidate and Stakeholder Perspectives.Kidney international reports · 2024Article
- Process control: simply a matter of efficiency or of survival and costs? A single-centre quality improvement project in living donor renal transplant.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Practice Patterns for the Acceptance of Medically Complex Living Kidney Donors with Hematuria, Sickle Cell Trait, Smoking, Illegal Drug Use, or Urological Issues: A Multinational Survey.Avicenna journal of medicine · 2021Article
- An Environmental Scan and Evaluation of Quality Indicators Across Canadian Kidney Transplant Centers.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2021Article
- The impact of measuring split kidney function on post-donation kidney function: A retrospective cohort study.PloS one · 2021Article
- A RAND-Modified Delphi on Key Indicators to Measure the Efficiency of Living Kidney Donor Candidate Evaluations.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2020Article
- Living kidney donor assessment: Kidney lengthWorld journal of transplantation · 2020Article
- Can Split Renal Volume Assessment by Computed Tomography Replace Nuclear Split Renal Function in Living Kidney Donor Evaluations? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2019Article
- Factors that preclude the conclusion of a kidney transplant protocol from a living donor.Jornal brasileiro de nefrologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe process of evaluating candidates for living kidney donation can be inefficient. A structured review of existing information on this topic can provide a necessary foundation for quality improvement.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review to map the published literature to different themes related to an efficient donor candidate evaluation. We reviewed the websites of living donor programs to describe information provided to candidates about the nature and length of the evaluation process.
resultsWe reviewed of 273 published articles and 296 websites. Surveys of living donor programs show variability in donor evaluation protocols. Computed tomography (a routinely done test for all successful candidates) may be used to assess split renal volume instead of nuclear renography when the 2 kidneys differ in size. Depending on the candidate's estimated glomerular filtration rate, a nuclear medicine scan for measured glomerular filtration rate may not be needed. When reported, the time to complete the evaluation varied from 3 months to over a year. The potential for undesirable outcomes was reported in 23 studies, including missed opportunities for living donation and/or preemptive transplants. According to living donor websites, programs generally evaluate 1 candidate at a time when multiple come forward for assessment, and few programs describe completing most of the evaluation in a single in-person visit.
conclusionsData on the efficiency of the living donor evaluation are limited. Future efforts can better define, collect, and report indicators of an efficient living donor evaluation to promote quality improvement and better patient outcomes.
Identifiers
What 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.