Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35233403›Full record

ReviewJournal of education and health promotion2021

Scoring systems of kidney donation from deceased donors: A systematic review.

Fateme Moghbeli, Majid Jangi, Zahra Ebnehoseini

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of education and health promotion, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Fateme MoghbeliDepartment of Health Information Technology, Varastegan Institute for Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Majid JangiHealth Information Technology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Zahra EbnehoseiniPsychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Renal disease is the most prevalent disease. Kidney failure can cause physical problems. Hence, patients need to use dialysis therapy or kidney transplantation, and actually, people are in the waiting list for a transplant. This research aimed to extract the prognostic models that evaluate the preparation of kidney donors diagnosed with brain death (DBD). This research was a systematic review of PubMed, Science Direct, and general explorers up until 2020. It followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-P protocol. The assessment of the articles was done by the authors. This evaluation was supposed to be in the form of scoring, prioritizing, and ranking the donors in terms of their preparation. Eleven sources of information included 9 academic articles along with 2 Grey Sources from 7 different countries. 9 algorithms and models were extracted which included, overall 10 factors. All the models were comprised of 4 factors and about 90% of these models considered 4 or 5 factors to evaluate the preparation of kidney donors DBD. Over 60% of the models had taken into account age, blood pressure history, and creatinine factors. Disease prognosis facilitates a doctor's decision-making on the emergence of the disease. Prognostic models of renal diseases can be a great help to patients. A review of the related literature revealed that all the models received a high score in terms of the two factors they included, age and history of blood pressure.

Indexed as

Deceaseddonationdonorskidneypredictionreviewscoringsystemtransplant

Identifiers

PMID35233403
PMCPMC8826869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.