Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40170798›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of kidney health and disease2025

The Flow of Living Kidney Donor Candidates Through the Evaluation Process: A Single-Center Experience in Ontario, Canada.

Steven Habbous, Beth Montesi, Christy Masse, Corinne Weernink, Sisira Sarma, Mehmet A Begen, Ngan N Lam, Christine Dipchand, Seychelle Yohanna, Dervla M Connaughton and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of kidney health and disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Steven HabbousDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Western University, London, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9650-9105
Beth MontesiMulti-Organ Transplant Program, University Hospital, London, ON, Canada.
Christy MasseMulti-Organ Transplant Program, University Hospital, London, ON, Canada.
Corinne WeerninkMulti-Organ Transplant Program, University Hospital, London, ON, Canada.
Sisira SarmaDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Mehmet A BegenDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Ngan N LamDivisions of Transplant Medicine and Nephrology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0129-7091
Christine DipchandDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS Canada.
Seychelle YohannaDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0404-7319
Dervla M ConnaughtonDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Western University, London, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3466-6305
Lianne BarniehDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Western University, London, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2403-2392
Amit X GargDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Western University, London, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3398-3114

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Tracking the evaluation process of living kidney donor candidates facilitates benchmarking and can inform process redesign to improve experiences with the evaluation and enable more living donor kidney transplantation. Methods: We reviewed the medical records for all living donor candidates who were actively undergoing evaluation at any time between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016, at the London Health Sciences Centre in London, Ontario, Canada. We abstracted information on demographic factors, the evaluation process, reasons for a delayed evaluation, reasons for an evaluation termination (eg, donation, decline, withdrawal, loss to follow-up), frequency and timing of evaluation testing, and recipient dialysis status. Results: Over time, the number of living donor kidney transplants increased from 22 in 2013 to 32 in 2016 (18% and 34% of which were pre-emptive, respectively). The median number of candidates coming forward doubled from 167 in 2013 (2 candidates per recipient) to 348 in 2016 (4 candidates per recipient). Median time from first contact until donation decreased from 12.8 months in 2013 to 7.1 months in 2016 (a 45% reduction). The time from computed tomography (CT) angiography until donation (n = 74) was a median of 75 (interquartile range [IQR] = 36, 180) days, the longest single step in the evaluation. Common reasons for delay included waiting for the referral of their intended recipient for transplant evaluation (11% of candidates) and a need for the donor candidate to lose weight (8% of candidates). Donors completed the main evaluation tests on a median of 5 different dates. Thirty-six recipients started dialysis after their living donor candidates' evaluation had been underway for at least 3 months. Conclusion: Tracking the steps and reasons for an inefficient living kidney donor evaluation process can be used for quality improvement, and efficiency improvements are expected to translate into improved outcomes and experiences.

Indexed as

donationefficiencyevaluation processliving donor kidney transplantationliving kidney donorpre-emptive kidney transplant

Identifiers

PMID40170798
PMCPMC11960183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.