ArticleBMJ open2023
Quality improvement tools to manage deceased organ donation processes: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Integrative Review on Exploring Organ Donation After Death by Circulatory Criteria in Canada.Progress in transplantation (Aliso Viejo, Calif.) · 2025Review
- Hospital-Related Determinants of Refusal of Organ Donation in France: A Multilevel Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo collate and summarise the literature on the quality improvement tools that have been developed for deceased organ donation processes after circulatory determination of death and neurological determination of death.
designScoping review using the Joanna Briggs Institute framework. DATA SOURCES: We searched for published (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science) and unpublished literature (organ donation organisation websites worldwide). The search was initially conducted on 17 July 2021 and updated on 1 June 2022. Included articles discussed the creation and/or use of quality improvement tools to manage deceased organ donation processes. Two independent reviewers screened the references, extracted and analysed the data.
results40 references were included in this review, and most records were written in English (n=38), originated in Canada (n=21), published between 2016 and 2022 (n=22), and were specific for donation after neurological determination of death (n=20). The tools identified included checklists, algorithms, flow charts, charts, pathways, decision tree maps and mobile apps. These tools were applied in the following phases of the organ donation process: (1) potential donor identification, (2) donor referral, (3) donor assessment and risk, (4) donor management, (5) withdrawal of life-sustaining measures, (6) death determination, (7) organ retrieval and (8) overall organ donation process.
conclusionsWe conducted a thorough investigation of the available quality improvement tools for deceased organ donation processes. The existing evidence lacks details in the report of methods used for development, testing and impact of these tools, and we could not locate tools specific for some phases of the organ donation process. Lastly, by mapping existing tools, we aim to facilitate both clinician choices among available tools, as well as research work building on existing knowledge.
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.