ArticleTransplantation direct2025
New Donor Selection Criteria Result in Optimal Outcomes of Kidneys from Uncontrolled Donation After the Circulatory Determination of Death.
Article in Transplantation direct, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of our study is to share our experience with uncontrolled donation after the circulatory determination of death (uDCDD) kidney transplantation and to propose updated donor selection criteria for uDCDD programs. Methods: A prospective study comparing kidney recipients of grafts from local uDCDD donors with recipients of grafts from local standard criteria donors after the neurological determination of death (DNDD) between 2013 and 2024. Donor acceptance was determined using a combination of 3 factors: donor age, no-flow period, and warm ischemic time (WIT). Normothermic regional perfusion was the preservation method in uDCDD cases. Results: The study included 43 kidney recipients from uDCDD donors and 80 controls. The median no-flow period was 10 min (interquartile range, 5-13), and the median WIT was 101 min (interquartile range, 86-118). The incidence of delayed graft function was significantly higher in the uDCDD group (46.5% versus 21.3%; Conclusions: Kidney transplantation from uDCDD donors is a viable option, yielding outcomes comparable with those from standard DNDD donors. Strict donor selection criteria and efforts to minimize WIT are essential to achieving optimal long-term results.
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.