Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36861114›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of kidney health and disease2023

Disparities in Deceased Donor Kidney Offer Acceptance: A Survey of Canadian Transplant Nephrologists, General Surgeons and Urologists.

A J Vinson, H Cardinal, C Parsons, K K Tennankore, R Mainra, K Maru, D Treleaven, J Gill

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of kidney health and disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. The dynamics of deceased donor kidney transplant decision making: insights from studying individual clinicians' offer decisions.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

A J VinsonNova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9345-5252
H CardinalCentre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, QC, Canada.
C ParsonsOrgan and Tissue Donation and Transplantation, Canadian Blood Services, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
K K TennankoreNova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7919-6709
R MainraDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Regina, Canada.
K MaruCanadian Blood Services, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
D TreleavenDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
J GillDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Canadian Blood Services · CADalhousie University · CACentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal · CAMcMaster University · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Saskatchewan · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Significant variability in organ acceptance thresholds have been demonstrated across the United States, but data regarding the rate and rationale for kidney donor organ decline in Canada are lacking. Objective: To examine decision making regarding deceased kidney donor acceptance and non-acceptance in a population of Canadian transplant professionals. Design: A survey study of theoretical deceased donor kidney cases of increasing complexity. Setting: Canadian transplant nephrologists, urologists, and surgeons making donor call decisions responding to an electronic survey between July 22 and October 4, 2022. Participants: Invitations to participate were distributed to 179 Canadian transplant nephrologists, surgeons, and urologists through e-mail. Participants were identified by contacting each transplant program and requesting a list of physicians who take donor call. Measurements: Survey respondents were asked whether they would accept or decline a given donor, assuming there was a suitable recipient. They were also asked to cite reasons for donor non-acceptance. Methods: Donor scenario-specific acceptance rates (total acceptance divided by total number of respondents for a given scenario and overall) and reasons for decline were determined and presented as a percentage of the total cases declined. Results: In all, 72 respondents from 7 provinces completed at least one question of the survey, with considerable variability between acceptance rates for centers; the most conservative center declined 60.9% of donor cases, whereas the most aggressive center declined only 28.1%, Limitations: As with any survey, there is the potential for participation bias. In addition, this study examines donor characteristics in isolation, however, asks respondent to assume there is a suitable candidate available. In reality, whenever donor quality is considered, it should be considered in the context of the intended recipient. Conclusion: In a survey of increasingly medically complex deceased kidney donor cases, there was significant variability in donor decline among Canadian transplant specialists. Given relatively high rates of donor decline and apparent heterogeneity in acceptance decisions, Canadian transplant specialists may benefit from additional education regarding the benefits achieved from even medically complex kidney donors for appropriate candidates relative to remaining on dialysis on the transplant waitlist.

Indexed as

Canadiandeceased donordeclinekidney transplantmarginalsurvey

Identifiers

PMID36861114
PMCPMC9969426
OpenAlexW4321795005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.