ArticleCJC open2025
Expert Perspectives on a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Novel Donor Storage Platforms to Cold-static Preservation for Heart Transplantation.
Article in CJC open, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is a clinical need for randomized evidence to establish the comparative efficacy of organ preservation techniques for heart transplantation in Canada. In this study we used a survey to evaluate the feasibility and value of a randomized trial comparing cold-static preservation with novel donor storage platforms. Methods: A validated survey was distributed to 30 members of the Canadian Cardiac Transplant Network, including adult heart failure cardiologists, pediatric cardiologists, and cardiovascular surgeons. Survey sections addressed demographics, clinical scenarios, perceived benefits, barriers, and willingness to participate in a randomized trial. Results: Twenty-six experts (87%) responded: 65% were adult heart failure cardiologists, 27% were women, and 54% practiced in Ontario. Respondents were evenly distributed across career stages. All expressed interest in participating in a trial, and 88% were comfortable with study blinding. Willingness to randomize declined with anticipated ischemic times: > 80% for < 6 hours, 42% for 6-8 hours, and 31% for > 8 hours. Key benefits identified included improved donor utilization (69%), better outcomes (58%), and enhanced scientific understanding (58%). The major barrier was device cost (73%). Conclusions: Canadian experts reported interest and perceived equipoise for a randomized trial of organ preservation strategies, although cost remains a key barrier. Such a trial could standardize protocols and strengthen the evidence base guiding heart transplantation practice.
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.