ArticleTransplantation direct2018
Repatriation of Patients to Referral Centers and Outcomes After Kidney Transplantation: A Single-center Analysis From the United Kingdom.
Article in Transplantation direct, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare posttransplant outcomes of kidney allograft recipients between those followed up at transplant centers and those that were repatriated back to referral renal units.
methodsWe analyzed data for 1375 consecutive patients transplanted in a single center in the United Kingdom. Patients were stratified into 3 groups: (1) externally referred patients with repatriation back for external follow-up (repatriated, n = 463), (2) externally referred patients not repatriated and followed-up internally at transplant center (nonrepatriated, n = 365), and (3) internally referred patients within transplant center with continued internal transplant center follow-up (internal, n = 547). Patient and death-censored graft survival were compared between groups on both univariable and multivariable analyses.
resultsBaseline comparisons found that the nonrepatriated group had increased risk for prolonged length of stay and delayed graft function compared with repatriated patients. The nonrepatriated group had significantly shorter survival compared to the repatriated patients (90.2% vs 94.1% at 5 years,
conclusionsOur results provide reassurance regarding repatriation of care after kidney transplantation for the United Kingdom. Nonrepatriated patients are identified as a high-risk group for increased mortality, but further investigation is warranted to probe this heterogeneous group and validate in a non-United Kingdom cohort.
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.