ArticleKansas journal of medicine
A Single-Center, Retrospective Comparison of Non-Pre-emptive with Pre-emptive Renal Transplantations.
Article in Kansas journal of medicine. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) requires renal replacement therapy, either through pre-emptive transplantation (PET) or non-pre-emptive transplantation (non-PET). PET is associated with improved patient and allograft survival compared to non-PET; however, only 2.5% of patients in the United States undergo PET. The authors of this study report on mortality and allograft rejection rates in patients undergoing PET versus non-PET. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study compared posttransplant complications between PET and non-PET in adults with ESRD. De-identified electronic health record data from 2017 to 2022 were analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) for one-year post-transplant mortality and allograft rejection were calculated using unadjusted multivariate logistic regression (Model 1), adjusted for age and sex (Model 2), and further adjusted for comorbidities (Model 3). Results: A total of 787 patients with ESRD underwent kidney transplantation: 14% underwent non-PET and 86% underwent PET. Compared to PET, the ORs for one-year post-transplant mortality with non-PET were:Model 1: OR 1.76 (95% CI, 0.64-4.85; p = 0.27)Model 2: OR 2.02 (95% CI, 0.71-5.71; p = 0.19)Model 3: OR 1.86 (95% CI, 0.64-5.39; p = 0.24)For one-year allograft rejection, the ORs for non-PET versus PET were:Model 1: OR 1.63 (95% CI, 0.85-3.10; p = 0.13)Model 2: OR 1.61 (95% CI, 0.84-3.06; p = 0.15)Model 3: OR 1.60 (95% CI, 0.82-3.10; p = 0.16). Conclusions: This single-center study found no statistically significant differences in one-year mortality or allograft rejection between patients undergoing PET and non-PET.
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.