Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31403554›Full record

ArticleTransplantation2020

Equity-Efficiency Trade-offs Associated With Alternative Approaches to Deceased Donor Kidney Allocation: A Patient-level Simulation.

Bernadette Li, John A Cairns, Rachel J Johnson, Christopher J E Watson, Paul Roderick, Gabriel C Oniscu, Wendy Metcalfe, J Andrew Bradley, Charles R Tomson, Heather Draper and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Transplantation, 2020. 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

13 authors.

Bernadette LiDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
John A CairnsDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Rachel J JohnsonNHS Blood and Transplant, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Christopher J E WatsonDepartment of Surgery, University of Cambridge and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Paul RoderickPrimary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Gabriel C OniscuTransplant Unit, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Wendy MetcalfeScottish Renal Registry, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
J Andrew BradleyDepartment of Surgery, University of Cambridge and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Charles R TomsonDepartment of Renal Medicine, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Heather DraperDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
John L ForsytheTransplant Unit, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Christopher DudleyRichard Bright Renal Unit, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Rommel RavananRichard Bright Renal Unit, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0109-10116
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of patients waiting to receive a kidney transplant outstrips the supply of donor organs. We sought to quantify trade-offs associated with different approaches to deceased donor kidney allocation in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and access to transplantation.

methodsAn individual patient simulation model was developed to compare 5 different approaches to kidney allocation, including the 2006 UK National Kidney Allocation Scheme (NKAS) and a QALY maximization approach designed to maximize health gains from a limited supply of donor organs. We used various sources of patient-level data to develop multivariable regression models to predict survival, health state utilities, and costs. We simulated the allocation of kidneys from 2200 deceased donors to a waiting list of 5500 patients and produced estimates of total lifetime costs and QALYs for each allocation scheme.

resultsAmong patients who received a transplant, the QALY maximization approach generated 48 045 QALYs and cost £681 million, while the 2006 NKAS generated 44 040 QALYs and cost £625 million. When also taking into consideration outcomes for patients who were not prioritized to receive a transplant, the 2006 NKAS produced higher total QALYs and costs and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £110 741/QALY compared with the QALY maximization approach.

conclusionsCompared with the 2006 NKAS, a QALY maximization approach makes more efficient use of deceased donor kidneys but reduces access to transplantation for older patients and results in greater inequity in the distribution of health gains between patients who receive a transplant and patients who remain on the waiting list.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationDonor SelectionHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Care RationingHealth Services AccessibilityKidney TransplantationWaiting ListsAdolescentAdultAge FactorsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth Care CostsHealth StatusHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID31403554
PMCPMC7147404

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.