ArticleTransplantation direct2024
Textbook Outcomes in Solid Transplantation: A Systematic Review.
Article in Transplantation direct, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The concept of TO is expanding across various surgical disciplines to establish a standardized, comprehensive quality benchmark. Traditional metrics such as 1-y patient and graft survival have been key for evaluating transplant program performance but are now deemed inadequate because of significant field advancements. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the applicability and validity of textbook outcome (TO) in the setting of solid organ transplantation. Methods: A structured search, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases on March 10, 2024. Results: Fourteen articles were identified for inclusion in this review. Of these, 2 studies addressed TO in heart transplantation, 3 in lung transplantation, 2 in kidney transplantation, and 7 in liver transplantation. A subgroup analysis was conducted to categorize the different definitions of TOs and identify the most common reasons for TO failure. Conclusions: Our systematic review highlights the ongoing efforts in the field of solid organ transplantation to define TO and emphasizes the importance of developing a universally recognized set of TO criteria for each type of transplant. TO provides a valuable framework for transplant centers to benchmark their performance against similar institutions on a risk-adjusted basis and to pinpoint specific areas for enhancing patient outcomes. Even the most successful programs may discover aspects within the composite outcome with scope for improvement.
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.