Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33204824›Full record

ArticleTransplantation direct2020

The Tangible Benefits of Living Donation: Results of a Qualitative Study of Living Kidney Donors.

Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen, Miriam Robin, Amrita Saha, Anne Eno, Romi Lifshitz, Madeleine M Waldram, Samantha N Getsin, Nadia M Chu, Fawaz Al Ammary, Dorry L Segev and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Transplantation direct, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

11 authors.

Sarah E Van Pilsum RasmussenDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Miriam RobinUniversity of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Amrita SahaDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Anne EnoDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Romi LifshitzMcMastser University, Hamilton, ON.
Madeleine M WaldramDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Samantha N GetsinDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Nadia M ChuDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Fawaz Al AmmaryDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Dorry L SegevDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Macey L HendersonDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

Funding

Patient Oriented Research in Kidney Disease and Transplant SurgeryK24DK101828 · NIDDK · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SEGEV, DORRY L. · 2014 to 2018
$922k
Technological Innovations for Live Kidney Donor Follow-up Care ManagementK01DK114388 · NIDDK · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI LEVAN, MACEY LEIGH · 2017 to 2021
$720k
Frailty, Post-Transplant Delirium, and Neurocognitive Underpinnings of AlzheimersK01AG064040 · NIA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI CHU, NADIA MIKHAIL · 2020 to 2022
$390k
NIA NIH HHS K01 AG064040NIDDK NIH HHS K01 DK114388NIDDK NIH HHS K24 DK101828
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The framework currently used for living kidney donor selection is based on estimation of acceptable donor risk, under the premise that benefits are only experienced by the recipient. However, some interdependent donors might experience tangible benefits from donation that cannot be considered in the current framework (ie, benefits experienced directly by the donor that improve their daily life, well-being, or livelihood).

methodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with 56 living kidney donors regarding benefits experienced from donation. Using a qualitative descriptive and constant comparative approach, themes were derived inductively from interview transcripts by 2 independent coders; differences in coding were reconciled by consensus.

resultsOf 56 participants, 30 were in interdependent relationships with their recipients (shared household and/or significant caregiving responsibilities). Tangible benefits identified by participants fell into 3 major categories: health and wellness benefits, time and financial benefits, and interpersonal benefits. Participants described motivations to donate a kidney based on a more nuanced understanding of the benefits of donation than accounted for by the current "acceptable risk" paradigm. DISCUSSION: Tangible benefits for interdependent donors may shift the "acceptable risk" paradigm (where no benefit is assumed) of kidney donor evaluation to a risk/benefit paradigm more consistent with other surgical decision-making.

Identifiers

PMID33204824
PMCPMC7665258

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.