Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41122433›Full record

ReviewTransplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation2025

Mapping and Handling Conflicts of Interest in Deceased Organ Donation: How to Handle Ethical Issues and Build Trust in the Healthcare Team.

David Shaw, Nichon Esther Jansen, Alicia Pérez-Blanco, Anne Floden, Rutger Jan Ploeg, Jessie Cooper, Tineke Jentina Wind, Dale Gardiner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

8 authors.

David ShawInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Nichon Esther JansenDutch Transplant Foundation, Leiden, Netherlands.
Alicia Pérez-BlancoOrganización Nacional de Trasplantes, Madrid, Spain.
Anne FlodenSödra Älvsborg Hospital, Borås, Sweden.
Rutger Jan PloegOxford Transplant Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jessie CooperSchool of Health Sciences, City University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Tineke Jentina WindMaastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands.
Dale GardinerNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been suggested that there is a significant conflict of interest between providing best care for the dying patient and a subsidiary role in facilitating the donation process. Should healthcare professionals who are involved in a patient's care and determination of death also be involved in discussing donation with families? If they are involved, should they disclose this potential conflict of interest? In this paper we address the issue of conflicts of interest in organ donation by examining current best practice in four European countries (Sweden, Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Spain) and discuss whether having clear separation of roles in order to avoid conflicts is preferable to having the same physician (or team) handle both the dying process and donation. We also analyse the benefits and burdens of disclosing such potential conflicts.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestPatient Care TeamTissue and Organ ProcurementDisclosureEuropeHumansTissue DonorsTrustconflictsethicslaworgan donationpolicy

Identifiers

PMID41122433
PMCPMC12536478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.