Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40785851›Full record

ArticleTransplantation direct2025

Process Variation in Liver, Kidney, and Pancreas Transplantation: A Multicenter Evaluation From the Consortium for the Holistic Assessment of Risk in Transplant.

Alexandra T Strauss, Juan Carlos Caicedo, Whitney Welsh, Rhiannon Deierhoi Reed, Elisa J Gordon, David Taber, Yue Harn Ng, Katie Ross-Driscoll, Jesse D Schold, Marina Serper and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

15 authors.

Alexandra T StraussDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6313-7221
Juan Carlos CaicedoDepartment of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
Whitney WelshDuke AI Health, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Rhiannon Deierhoi ReedDepartment of Surgery, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL.
Elisa J GordonDepartment of Surgery, and Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
David TaberDepartment of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, SC.
Yue Harn NgDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, WA.
Katie Ross-DriscollDepartment of Surgery, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN.
Jesse D ScholdDepartment of Surgery, University of Colorado, Denver, CO.
Marina SerperDepartment of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Andrew OlsonDuke AI Health, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Jessica L HardingDepartment of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Andrew AdamsDepartment of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Allan D KirkDepartment of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Lisa M McElroyDepartment of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC.

Funding

Increasing Access to Transplant through Improved Clinical Decision MakingK08MD017632 · NIMHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Lisa M McElroy · 2022 to 2026
$551k
NIMHD NIH HHS K08 MD017632
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Transplant center processes for determining candidacy are complex, poorly documented, ambiguous, and variable across centers. Opaque and nonstandardized transplant processes can compromise data collection and lead to inconsistent outcomes. Methods: To understand process variation and data quality in transplantation, we surveyed 8 abdominal transplant centers in an existing research consortium about their processes of care for liver, kidney, and pancreas transplants. We used the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model to identify variation related to people, tasks, tools, environment, and processes. Results: Centers varied in their processes across phases of transplant care, including screening referral, waitlist maintenance, and posttransplant follow-up. Regarding referrals, transplant centers chose their locations for outreach to and education for referring providers based on historical density or by request (63%). Additionally, screening of referred patients for transplant evaluation varied across centers related to screening method, screening timing/attempts, and who determines eligibility. For patients declined for listing, only 25% of centers had a formal appeal process (liver only), and most centers had either an informal appeal process (liver: 50%, kidney and pancreas: 87.5%) or none (liver: 25%, kidney and pancreas: 12.5%). Conclusions: In light of increased national attention to improving data collection, processes of care, and workforce efficiency, our findings provide insight into processes that may inform effective transplant practices and identify targets for future interventions.

Identifiers

PMID40785851
PMCPMC12333791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.