ArticleChest2024
Evaluating US Multiple Listing Practices in Lung Transplantation: Unveiling Hidden Disparities.
Article in Chest, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multiple center listing for organ transplantation in the United States: time to reform?Frontiers in transplantation · 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultiple listing (ML) is a practice used to increase the potential for transplant but is controversial due to concerns that it disproportionately benefits patients with greater access to health care resources. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is there disparity in ML practices based on social deprivation in the United States and does ML lead to quicker time to transplant? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsA retrospective cohort study of adult (≥ 18 years of age) lung transplant candidates listed for transplant (2005-2018) was conducted. Exclusion criteria included heart only or heart and lung transplant and patients relisted during the observation period. Data were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research File. The first exposure of interest was the Social Deprivation Index with a primary outcome of ML status, to assess disparities between ML and single listing (SL) participants. The second exposure of interest was ML status with a primary outcome of time to transplant, to assess whether implementation of ML leads to quicker time to transplant.
resultsA total of 35,890 patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 791 (2.2%) were ML and 35,099 (97.8%) were SL. ML participants had lower median level of social deprivation (5 units, more often female: 60.0% vs 42.3%) and lower median lung allocation score (35.3 vs 37.3). ML patients were more likely to be transplanted than SL patients (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73), but there was a significantly quicker time to transplant only for those whom ML was early (within 6 months of initial listing) (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.32).
interpretationML is an uncommon practice with disparities existing between ML and SL patients based on several factors including social deprivation. ML patients are more likely to be transplanted, but only if they have ML status early in their transplant candidacy. With changing allocation guidelines, it is yet to be seen how ML will change with the implementation of continuous distribution.
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.