ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024
Fatigue in living kidney donors compared to a German general population sample: an exploratory study.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical studies have not conclusively clarified whether fatigue scores in living kidney donors after donation are fundamentally different from general population samples. Moreover, the association between sociodemographic and donor specific factors and fatigue in donors is not well understood. Patients and methods: Fatigue scores of 358 living kidney donors on average 7.67 years post-donation were compared with 1896 subjects from the German general population in five strata of age and sex. Fatigue was measured with the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20). Relationships between the five MFI-20 subscales and the sociodemographic variables sex, age, education, and in the donor sample also years since donation were calculated. Additionally, the association between donor specific variables and fatigue levels were analyzed. Results: Overall, donors had lower fatigue scores than the population sample. Particularly the age group 65-74 and above reported significantly lower fatigue scores. A significant exception was found in women aged 45-54 years, where donors showed significant higher general fatigue scores than the corresponding subgroup of the general population sample. Multiple regression analyses in the general population sample revealed associations between female sex and higher age with higher values in most MFI-20 subscales, whereas subjects with higher education showed mostly lower fatigue scores. In the donor group, these associations were of little importance. Also, years since donation, partnership, and recipient group were not strongly related to fatigue. However, higher fatigue in donors was associated with more donation regret, a more negative relationship with the recipient, a more negatively perceived recipient health, less perceived family support, and more financial burden. Conclusion: Fatigue is less prevalent particularly in older donors and predictors of fatigue presented in the general population sample seem to have little importance in the donors. However, middle-aged female donors might be more prone to develop fatigue. This group may require more intense exploration before and after donation to detect and treat the underlying factors timely.
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.