Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37235041›Full record

ArticleKidney medicine2023

Dialysis Patients' Social Networks and Living Donation Offers.

Avrum Gillespie, Jonathan Daw, Riley Brown, Jamie Cappiello, Briana Eugene Lee, Edward L Fink, Heather M Gardiner, Peter P Reese, Crystal A Gadegbeku, Zoran Obradovic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Kidney medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Avrum GillespieDivision of Nephrology, Hypertension, and Kidney Transplantation, Department of Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Jonathan DawDepartment of Sociology and Demography, College of Liberal Arts, Penn State, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Riley BrownDivision of Nephrology, Hypertension, and Kidney Transplantation, Department of Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Jamie CappielloDepartment of Social & Behavioral Sciences, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Briana Eugene LeeDivision of Nephrology, Hypertension, and Kidney Transplantation, Department of Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Edward L FinkDepartment of Communication and Social Influence, Klein College of Media and Communication, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Heather M GardinerDepartment of Social & Behavioral Sciences, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Peter P ReeseRenal-Electrolyte and Hypertension Division, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Crystal A GadegbekuGlickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Zoran ObradovicCenter for Data Analytics and Biomedical Informatics, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Funding

Social Network Interventions to Reduce Race Disparities in Living Kidney DonationR01DK114888 · NIDDK · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI DAW, JONATHAN KYLE · 2017 to 2021
$1.2M
Social Network Analysis and Renal Education to Promote Transplantation (SNARE Transplant)K23DK111943 · NIDDK · TEMPLE UNIV OF THE COMMONWEALTH · PI GILLESPIE, AVRUM · 2017 to 2021
$904k
NIDDK NIH HHS K23 DK111943NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK114888
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rationale & Objective: Most living kidney donors are members of a hemodialysis patient's social network. Network members are divided into core members, those strongly connected to the patient and other members; and peripheral members, those weakly connected to the patient and other members. We identify how many hemodialysis patients' network members offered to become kidney donors, whether these offers were from core or peripheral network members, and whose offers the patients accepted. Study Design: A cross-sectional interviewer-administered hemodialysis patient social network survey. Setting & Participants: Prevalent hemodialysis patients in 2 facilities. Predictors: Network size and constraint, a donation from a peripheral network member. Outcomes: Number of living donor offers, accepting an offer. Analytical Approach: We performed egocentric network analyses for all participants. Poisson regression models evaluated associations between network measures and number of offers. Logistic regression models determined the associations between network factors and accepting a donation offer. Results: The mean age of the 106 participants was 60 years. Forty-five percent were female, and 75% self-identified as Black. Fifty-two percent of participants received at least one living donor offer (range 1-6); 42% of the offers were from peripheral members. Participants with larger networks received more offers (incident rate ratio [IRR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.12-1.42; Limitations: A small sample of only hemodialysis patients. Conclusions: Most participants received at least one living donor offer, often from peripheral network members. Future living donor interventions should focus on both core and peripheral network members.

Indexed as

ConstraintdensityESKDhemodialysiskidney transplantliving donationliving donorsocial determinants of healthsocial networktransplantation

Identifiers

PMID37235041
PMCPMC10206208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.