ReviewClinical kidney journal2024
Push toward pre-emptive kidney transplantation - for sure?
Review in Clinical kidney journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- SGLT2 Inhibitors, Muscle Loss, and Creatinine-Based Estimated GFR: An Integrative Conceptual Review of Renoprotection.Kidney medicine · 2026Review
- Uraemic burden index: a novel predictor of pre-emptive kidney transplant outcome.Clinical kidney journal · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pre-emptive kidney transplantation (PKT) has long been considered the optimal treatment for patients with end-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) seeking the most favourable long-term outcomes. However, the significant growth in transplant procedures over recent decades has led to a notable increase in wait-listed patients and a disproportionate demand for donor organs. This situation necessitates a re-evaluation of transplantation timing and the establishment of rational indications from both societal and clinical perspectives. An increasing number of retrospective analyses have challenged the universal benefit of PKT, suggesting that premature indications for living or deceased donor PKT may not always yield superior hard outcomes compared with non-PKT approaches. Conventional predictive models have shown limitations in accurately assessing risks for certain subpopulations, potentially leading to significant disparities among wait-listed patients. To address these challenges, we propose the following considerations. Prediction models should not only optimize the distribution of our limited donor resources, but should also illuminate foreseeable risks associated with a potentially 'unsuccessful' PKT. Therefore, this article seeks to underscore the necessity for further discourse on the smouldering concept of when and for whom living or deceased donor PKT should be considered. Is it universally beneficial, or should the clinical paradigm be re-evaluated? In the endeavour to attain superior post-PKT survival outcomes compared with non-PKT or conservative treatment, it seems critical to acknowledge that other treatments may provide more favourable results for certain individuals. This introduces the intricate task of effectively navigating the complexities associated with 'too early' or 'unsuccessful' PKT.
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.