ArticlePatient preference and adherence2023
Setting Organ Allocation Priorities: A Discrete Choice Experiment with German Patients and Their Relatives.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Influence of HIV Status on Organ Procurement and Allocation: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Australian Transplant Providers.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Organ Support Requirements as Markers of Disease Severity and Mortality in Hospitalized Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Canadian Kidney Transplant Recipients', Transplant Candidates', and Caregivers' Perspectives on Precision Medicine and Molecular Matching in Kidney Allocation: A Qualitative Analysis.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Organ transplantation systems benefit from guidelines that are harmonious with the preferences of the people involved. Discrete choice experiments are useful tools for eliciting preferences. Patients and Methods: This study evaluated the preferences of patients and their relatives (n=285) to identify their priorities in organ allocation using a discrete choice experiment. In eight hypothetical allocation decisions, the participants were asked to select the candidate they considered the most suitable The candidates differed in years of life gained after transplantation, quality of life after transplantation, waiting time until transplantation, age, compliance and social support. Results: The most important aspects for setting priority in organ allocation were lack of compliance (β= -2.5, p<0.001) and good quality of life after transplantation (β = +1.4, p<0.001). The lack of social support (ß = -0.8, p<0.05) and the more years of life gained after transplantation (β = +0.5, p<0.001) had less but still a significant amount of influence on this decision, while the waiting list was not considered significantly important (β = 0.1, p>0.05). The comparison of the different relations to transplantation showed that life years gained after transplantation was of high relevance to posttransplant patients (+10 years: β = +0.709, p<0.001 / +15 years: β = +0.700, p<0.001) and of no importance to waitlisted patients (+10 years: β = +0.345, p>0.05 / + 15 years: β = +0.173, p>0.05) and relatives (+ 10 years: β = +0.063, p>0.05 / +15 years: β = +0.304, p>0.05). Conclusion: This study provides useful insights into the unique perspective of patients and their relatives on priority-setting in the allocation of donor organs that should be reflected in improved donor organ allocation rules.
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.