ArticleImmunity, inflammation and disease2021
Feasible kidney donation with living marginal donors, including diabetes mellitus.
Article in Immunity, inflammation and disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk for subsequent hypertension and cardiovascular disease after living kidney donation: is it clinically relevant?Clinical kidney journal · 2022Review
- Feasible kidney donation with living marginal donors, including diabetes mellitus.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 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
20 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the donor outcomes of living donor kidney transplantation between standard donors (SDs) and marginal donors (MDs) including diabetic patients (MD + DM).
methodsMDs were defined according to Japanese guideline criteria: (a) age >70-years, (b) blood pressure ≤130/80 mmHg on hypertension medicine, (c) body mass index >25 to ≤32 kg/m
resultsNo kidney function parameters were different between SDs and MDs. When comparing SD and MD + DM, MD + DM had a lower postoperative eGFR (48 vs. 41 (1 (month), p = .02), 49 vs. 40 (12, p < .01), 48 vs. 42 (24, p = .04), 47 vs. 38 (36, p = .01)) and the percentage of residual eGFR (SD vs. MD + DM: 63 vs. 57 (1 (month), p < .01), 63 vs. 57 (2, p < .01), 64 vs. 56 (12, p < .01), 63 vs. 57 (24, p < .01), 63 vs. 52 (36, p = .02)). However, when MD with a single risk factor of DM was compared to SD, the difference disappeared. Nine out of 12 (75%) MD + DM had ≥2 risk factors.
conclusionsAlthough long-term observation of donor kidney function is necessary, careful MD + DM selection had the potential to expand the donor pool.
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.