ArticleBMC nephrology2025
Impact of delayed graft function on overall and graft survival in recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical and Histopathologic Spectrum of Primary Nonfunction in Renal Allografts.Kidney international reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Delayed graft function (DGF) is a frequent complication among recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants, with an incidence rate ranging from 20% to 50%. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of DGF on both graft and overall patient survival. In a retrospective cohort of 293 patients who underwent transplantation between 2007 and 2021, demographic, clinical, and long-term follow-up data were analyzed. Patients with DGF had a significantly lower 5-year graft survival rate than did those without DGF (log-rank test: p = 0.004; DGF: 80.0%, 95% CI: 70.0% − 91.0% vs. no DGF: 92.0%, 95% CI: 89.2% − 95.9%); nevertheless, without significant differences over 10 years (log-rank test: p = 0.098; DGF: 80.0%, 95% CI: 70.0% − 91.0% vs. no DGF: 87.9%, 95% CI: 83.8% − 92.1%). Regarding the overall survival, no significant differences were observed over 5 years (log-rank test: p = 0.9; DGF: 92.7%, 95% CI: 86.1% − 99.0% vs. no DGF: 92.0%, 95% CI: 89%-96%) or at 10 years (log-rank test: p = 0.81; DGF: 89.1%, 95% CI: 81.2%-97.7% vs. no DGF: 87.9%, 95% CI: 83.8%-92.1%). Multivariate analysis indicated that DGF was not associated with an increased risk of graft loss or reduced recipient survival. These findings underscore the need for larger, prospective studies to further elucidate the long-term implications of DGF and outline clinical management strategies for kidney transplant recipients.Clinical trial number Not applicable
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.