ArticleKidney medicine2025
A Cross-Sectional Social Network Analysis of Decision-Making About Recruiting a Living Donor for Kidney Transplantation.
Article in Kidney medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale & Objective: Most living kidney donors are members of the recipient's social network. Our study aims to characterize patient and social network factors associated with recruiting a living kidney donor. Study Design: A cross-sectional study. Setting & Participants: A total of 106 patients receiving hemodialysis (mean age 60 ± 13 years, 45% female, 75% Black) identified 508 network members (106 who offered to donate and 38 who received a donation request). Predictors: Demographic and network factors (eg instrumental support, strength of relationships between the patients and members). Outcomes: Whether the member offered to donate and whether the member's offer was accepted. Patients' qualitative reasoning regarding decision-making for recruiting a living kidney donor. Analytic Approach: We performed a mixed-methods egocentric network analysis using multilevel logistic regression models as well as qualitative analysis of open-ended survey questions. Results: Members who provided instrumental support were more likely to offer to donate (odds ratio 3.54; 95% CI [1.80-7.00]; Limitations: Small sample of only patients receiving hemodialysis. Conclusions: For many patients, the barrier to living kidney donation was not a lack of potential donors within their network but reticence to recruit a donor due to concern and guilt for the donor. Future living donor kidney transplantation interventions should engage patients and their networks to facilitate communication, address patient-specific concerns and emphasize donor retention.
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.