Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35456398›Full record

ArticleGenes2022

Vignette-Based Reflections to Inform Genetic Testing Policies in Living Kidney Donors.

Gurmukteshwar Singh, Reginald Gohh, Dinah Clark, Kartik Kalra, Manoj Das, Gitana Bradauskaite, Anthony J Bleyer, Bekir Tanriover, Alex R Chang, Prince M Anand

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Gurmukteshwar SinghDepartment of Nephrology, Geisinger Health, Danville, PA 17822, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3521-6763
Reginald GohhDivision of Organ Transplantation, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI 02908, USA.
Dinah ClarkNatera, Inc., Austin, TX 78753, USA.
Kartik KalraDepartment of Nephrology, Geisinger Health, Danville, PA 17822, USA.
Manoj DasDepartment of Nephrology, Geisinger Health, Danville, PA 17822, USA.
Gitana BradauskaiteDivision of Nephrology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA 19141, USA.
Anthony J BleyerDivision of Nephrology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA.
Bekir TanrioverDivision of Nephrology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2378-9302
Alex R ChangDepartment of Nephrology, Geisinger Health, Danville, PA 17822, USA.
Prince M AnandDepartment of Nephrology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7881-2162
Geisinger Health System · USEinstein Medical Center Philadelphia · USMedical University of South Carolina · USNatera (United States) · USProvidence College · USUniversity of Arizona · USWake Forest University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Family history of kidney disease increases risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in donors. Pre-donation genetic testing is recommended in evaluation guidelines and regulatory policy. Collaborating across several institutions, we describe cases to illustrate the utility as well as practical issues in incorporating genetic testing in transplant protocols. Case 1 is from 2009, before pervasive genetic testing. A healthy 27-year-old Caucasian male had an uneventful donor evaluation for his mother, who had early onset ESKD of unclear cause. He participated in paired-exchange kidney donation, but developed progressive kidney disease and gout over the next 10 years. A uromodulin gene mutation (NM_003361.3(UMOD):c.377 G>A p.C126Y) was detected and kidney biopsy showed tubulointerstitial kidney disease. The patient subsequently required kidney transplantation himself. Case 2 was a 36-year-old African American female who had an uneventful kidney donor evaluation. She underwent gene panel-based testing to rule out ApolipoproteinL1 risk variants, for which was negative. Incidentally, a sickle-cell trait (NM_000518.5(HBB):c.20A>T p.Glu7Val) was noted, and she was declined for kidney donation. This led to significant patient anguish. Case 3 was a 26-year-old Caucasian female who underwent panel-based testing because the potential recipient, her cousin, carried a variant of uncertain significance in the hepatocyte nuclear factor-1-β (HNF1B) gene. While the potential donor did not harbor this variant, she was found to have a likely pathogenic variant in complement factor I (NM_000204.4(CFI):c.1311dup:p.Asp438Argfs*8), precluding kidney donation. Our cases emphasize that while genetic testing can be invaluable in donor evaluation, transplant centers should utilize detailed informed consent, develop care pathways for secondary genetic findings, and share experience to develop best practices around genetic testing in donors.

Indexed as

Kidney TransplantationAdultFemaleGenetic TestingHumansLiving DonorsMaleMothersPolicyfamily history of kidney diseasegenetic testingkidney donationliving kidney donor

Identifiers

PMID35456398
PMCPMC9025319
OpenAlexW4220987486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.