ArticleBMC nephrology2025
Prediction model for probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation among transplant candidates in waiting list.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid increase in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients compared to available organ donors remains a significant challenge. This study aimed to externally validate and update the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) prediction model for receiving deceased donor kidney transplantation (KT) among Thai patients on the waiting list.
methodsThis retrospective study included 3,923 patients registered for deceased donor KT. The original SRTR score was calculated. The primary outcome was the time to deceased donor KT. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate associations between the SRTR score, additional predictors, and time to KT. The SRTR model was revised by re-estimating individual coefficients and updated by incorporating significant predictors. Discriminative performance was assessed using Harrell's C-index.
resultsThe original SRTR model performed poorly in our cohort, with a C-index of 0.521. After revision, the C-index slightly improved to 0.662. The updated model, incorporating nine predictors (sex, blood group, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, ESKD etiology, dialysis vintage, history of prior kidney transplantation, panel reactive antibody, and anti-HBs antibody status), achieved a C-index of 0.744, indicating good discriminative performance.
conclusionThe updated prediction model demonstrated good predictive performance and may be applied to optimize the management of transplant candidates on the waiting list in the Thai population. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.