ArticleTransplantation2020
Wide Variation in the Percentage of Donation After Circulatory Death Donors Across Donor Service Areas: A Potential Target for Improvement.
Article in Transplantation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Regional Variation in Transplant Utilization and Agonal Times among Donation after Circulatory Death Lung Donors in the United States.Clinical transplantation · 2026Article
- Implementation of a controlled DCD program in Western Austria - key considerations and insights.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026Article
- Deep learning unlocks the true potential of organ donation after circulatory death with accurate prediction of time-to-death.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Global transplantation: Lessons from organ transplantation organizations worldwide.World journal of transplantation · 2025Review
- The Dallas Donation after Circulatory Death Transplantation Summit: expanding donation after circulatory death procedures through process improvement, broader utilization, and innovation.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2024Review
- Population Characteristics and Organ Procurement Organization Performance Metrics.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Organ Transplantation Outcomes of Deceased Organ Donors in Organ Procurement Organization-Based Recovery Facilities Versus Acute-Care Hospitals.Progress in transplantation (Aliso Viejo, Calif.) · 2023Article
- Acuity circles allocation policy impact on waitlist mortality and donation after circulatory death liver transplantation: A nationwide retrospective analysis.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Reexamining Risk Aversion: Willingness to Pursue and Utilize Nonideal Donor Livers Among US Donation Service Areas.Transplantation direct · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSubstantial differences exist in the clinical characteristics of donors across the 58 donor service areas (DSAs). Organ procurement organization (OPO) performance metrics incorporate organs donated after circulatory determination of death (DCDD) donors but do not measure potential DCDD donors.
methodsUsing 2011-2016 United Network for Organ Sharing data, we examined the variability in DCDD donors/all deceased donors (%DCDD) across DSAs. We supplemented United Network for Organ Sharing data with CDC death records and OPO statistics to characterize underlying process and system factors that may correlate with donors and utilization.
resultsAmong 52 184 deceased donors, the %DCDD varied widely across DSAs, with a median of 15.1% (interquartile range [9.3%, 20.9%]; range 0.0%-32.0%). The %DCDD had a modest positive correlation with 4 DSA factors: median match model for end-stage liver disease, proportion of white deaths out of total deaths, kidney center competition, and %DCDD livers by a local transplant center (all Spearman coefficients 0.289-0.464), and negative correlation with 1 factor: mean kidney waiting time (Spearman coefficient -0.388). Adjusting for correlated variables in linear regression explained 46.3% of the variability in %DCDD.
conclusionsDonor pool demographics, waitlist metrics, center competition, and DCDD utilization explain only a portion of the variability of DCDD donors. This requires further studies and policy changes to encourage consideration of all possible organ donors.
Indexed as
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.