ArticleTransplantation direct2025
Feasibility and Optimization of Donation Advisor: a Decision Support Tool for Deceased Organ Donation and Transplantation.
Article in Transplantation direct, 2025. 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.
- The Bucharest international European Society for Organ Transplantation consensus on paediatric controlled donation after circulatory determination of death.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the ability of Donation Advisor (DA), a validated clinical decision support tool that uses continuous monitoring, variability analysis, and predictive models, to (i) predict likelihood of successful donation after circulatory determination of death (DCD) before withdrawal of life-sustaining measures (WLSM), and (ii) describe ischemia during WLSM in DCD patients. Methods: Eligible patients were screened at the 5 sites where DA was implemented. DA reports were generated in real time but shown to clinicians after the donation was complete (noninterventional). Clinicians were interviewed for improvement of the tool. Results: We enrolled 34 donor patients in the study; 27 had DCD attempts and 20 proceeded to organ recovery. DA reports were generated before WLSM in all 27 attempted DCD patients (100%) while post-WLSM ischemia reports were generated in 26 of 27 DCD attempts (96%). Nineteen of 34 involved clinicians completed interviews, 10 from intensive care, and 9 from transplantation team members. Following a user-centered design approach, feedback was used to create 5 versions. Revisions included additions, removals, clarifications, and formatting changes; the number of revisions decreased with each amendment. The report's predictive scores were found to be useful by most practitioners (83%). We identified barriers and drivers to use the report in future practice, some of which may be addressed through improved education and awareness. Conclusions: DA can be deployed in real time during the DCD process. The usefulness and usability of the DA report has improved through user feedback; both barriers and drivers to implementation exist.
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.