Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36107423›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Geospatial Analysis of Organ Transplant Referral Regions.

Tyler Schappe, Sarah Peskoe, Nrupen Bhavsar, L Ebony Boulware, Jane Pendergast, Lisa M McElroy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A comparison of deprivation indices and application to transplant populations.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2023
    Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Tyler SchappeDuke University, School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Sarah PeskoeDuke University, School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Nrupen BhavsarDuke University, School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
L Ebony BoulwareDuke University, School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Jane PendergastDuke University, School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Lisa M McElroyDuke University, School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: System and center-level interventions to improve health equity in organ transplantation benefit from robust characterization of the referral population served by each transplant center. Transplant referral regions (TRRs) define geographic catchment areas for transplant centers in the US, but accurately characterizing the demographics of populations within TRRs using US Census data poses a challenge. Objective: To compare 2 methods of linking US Census data with TRRs-a geospatial intersection method and a zip code cross-reference method. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study compared spatial congruence of spatial intersection and zip code cross-reference methods of characterizing TRRs at the census block level. Data included adults aged 18 years and older on the waiting list for kidney transplant from 2008 through 2018. Exposures: End-stage kidney disease. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multiple assignments, where a census tract or block group crossed the boundary between 2 hospital referral regions and was assigned to multiple different TRRs; misassigned area, the portion of census tracts or block groups assigned to a TRR using either method but fall outside of the TRR boundary. Results: In total, 102 TRRs were defined for 238 transplant centers. The zip code cross-reference method resulted in 4627 multiple-assigned census block groups (representing 18% of US land area assigned to TRRs), while the spatial intersection method eliminated this problem. Furthermore, the spatial method resulted in a mean and median reduction in misassigned area of 65% and 83% across all TRRs, respectively, compared with the zip code cross-reference method. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, characterizing populations within TRRs with census block groups provided high spatial resolution, complete coverage of the country, and balanced population counts. A spatial intersection approach avoided errors due to duplicative and incorrect assignments, and allowed more detailed and accurate characterization of the sociodemographics of populations within TRRs; this approach can enrich transplant center knowledge of local referral populations, assist researchers in understanding how social determinants of health may factor into access to transplant, and inform interventions to improve heath equity.

Indexed as

Kidney Failure, ChronicOrgan TransplantationAdultCohort StudiesHumansReferral and ConsultationWaiting Lists

Identifiers

PMID36107423
PMCPMC9478781

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.