Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35179716›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2022

Heart Transplant Donor Selection Guidelines: Review and Recommendations.

Shyama Sathianathan, Geetha Bhat

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Strategies for Expanding Donors Pool in Heart Transplantation.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022
    Review
  11. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shyama SathianathanSchool of Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Dr, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA. sys5817@psu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3988-5910
Geetha BhatHeart and Vascular Institute, Pennsylvania State University, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA.
Pennsylvania State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe rate of heart transplants, while steadily increasing, is insufficient to meet the growing list of transplant candidates. Marginal donors expand the donor pool. However, criteria used to identify donors greatly vary by institution. RECENT

findingsThe International Society of Heart and Lung Transplant (ISHLT) heart transplant report of 2020 reinforced the importance of donor selection criteria on heart transplant outcomes. Existing literature challenges and reinforces the report's findings. Newer methods, such as donation after circulatory death (DCD), also recontextualize existing donor selection criteria. Transplant prediction models from international databases are poor predictors of individual centers' outcome. Further study is needed to understand associations among donor risk factors, and update the methods used for donor heart selection. In this review, we examine the current literature on extended donor criteria and recommend a model for donor selection.

Indexed as

Heart TransplantationTissue and Organ ProcurementDonor SelectionHumansRisk FactorsTissue DonorsDonation after circulatory deathDonor acceptanceDonor selectionExtended criteria cardiac transplantHeart transplantMarginal donors

Identifiers

PMID35179716
OpenAlexW4213118060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.