Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37850026›Full record

ArticleKidney international reports2023

Considerable Variability Among Transplant Nephrologists in Judging Deceased Donor Kidney Offers.

Rianne Schutter, Jan-Stephan F Sanders, Chava L Ramspek, Meindert J Crop, Frederike J Bemelman, Maarten H L Christiaans, Luuk B Hilbrands, Aiko P J de Vries, Jacqueline van de Wetering, Arjan D van Zuilen and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Kidney international reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. When impact trials are not feasible: alternatives to study the impact of prediction models on clinical practice.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

14 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Rianne SchutterDepartment of Surgery-Organ Donation and Transplantation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
Jan-Stephan F SandersDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
Chava L RamspekDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands.
Meindert J CropDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
Frederike J BemelmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands.
Maarten H L ChristiaansDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Maastricht University Medical Center, the Netherlands.
Luuk B HilbrandsDepartment of Nephrology, Radboud University Medical Center, the Netherlands.
Aiko P J de VriesDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, and Leiden Transplant Center, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands.
Jacqueline van de WeteringDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Erasmus Medical Center, the Netherlands.
Arjan D van ZuilenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Merel van DiepenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands.
Henri G D LeuveninkDepartment of Surgery-Organ Donation and Transplantation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
Friedo W DekkerDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands.
Cyril MoersDepartment of Surgery-Organ Donation and Transplantation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Groningen · NLErasmus MC · NLMaastricht University · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Transplant clinicians may disagree on whether or not to accept a deceased donor kidney offer. We investigated the interobserver variability between transplant nephrologists regarding organ acceptance and whether the use of a prediction model impacted their decisions. Methods: We developed an observational online survey with 6 real-life cases of deceased donor kidneys offered to a waitlisted recipient. Per case, nephrologists were asked to estimate the risk of adverse outcome and whether they would accept the offer for this patient, or for a patient of their own choice, and how certain they felt. These questions were repeated after revealing the risk of adverse outcome, calculated by a validated prediction model. Results: Sixty Dutch nephrologists completed the survey. The intraclass correlation coefficient of their estimated risk of adverse outcome was poor (0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.08-0.62). Interobserver agreement of the decision on whether or not to accept the kidney offer was also poor (Fleiss kappa 0.13, 95% CI 0.129-0.130). The acceptance rate before and after providing the outcome of the prediction model was significantly influenced in 2 of 6 cases. Acceptance rates varied considerably among transplant centers. Conclusion: In this study, the estimated risk of adverse outcome and subsequent decision to accept a suboptimal donor kidney varied greatly among transplant nephrologists. The use of a prediction model could influence this decision and may enhance nephrologists' certainty about their decision.

Indexed as

decision-makingdonationkidneyorgan offersurveytransplantation

Identifiers

PMID37850026
PMCPMC10577326
OpenAlexW4384945969

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.