ArticleSystematic reviews2025
Quality indicators for deceased organ and tissue donation for transplantation: a scoping review protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe global shortage of organs and tissues highlights the need to strengthen and monitor the quality of deceased donor programs. Evaluating each stage of this process using quality-sensitive indicators is essential to ensure transparency, efficiency, safety, and effectiveness. However, there is still no consensus on which indicators best reflect the quality of organ and tissue donation processes, highlighting the need to map and analyze existing evidence. The aim of this study was to map and analyze international literature on indicators for monitoring the quality of the process of deceased organ and tissue donation for transplantation.
methodsThis review will be conducted following the methodology proposed by the JBI and guidelines for scope reviews. The databases, portals, and directories to be searched included MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier), Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), Business Source Complete (EBSCO), VHL Virtual Health Library; gray literature will be sought on Google Scholar, OpenGrey (GreyNet), CAPES Theses and Dissertations, Global ETD Search (formerly the Union Catalog), Open Access Theses and Dissertations, and websites of organ and tissue donation and transplant organizations. Studies in any language and published after 1980 will be considered for inclusion. A wide range of study designs will be included, encompassing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research, as well as relevant gray literature on organ and tissue donation and transplantation. Two reviewers will screen the studies, paying attention to the eligibility criteria. The data will be extracted by means of specific variables and presented in categories according to the evaluative triad structure, process, and result, and by the pillars of quality proposed by Avedis Donabedian in the form of diagrams, tables, charts, and narrative synthesis. DISCUSSION: The evidence on quality indicators for organ and tissue donation processes is conceptually diverse. This scoping review will provide an overview of existing studies, identify gaps in current knowledge, and guide future research on the development and validation of quality indicators. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework osf.io/ymuvj/.
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.