ArticlePloS one2026
The impact of simultaneous batch turn downs and targeted kidney utilization decisions on patient survival.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the US, Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) procure deceased-donor kidneys, whereas Transplant Programs (TxPs) make utilization decisions for candidates listed at their centers. For each donor, candidates are ranked in a strict priority sequence determined by the national allocation rules. Higher-ranked candidates have the right of first refusal over lower-ranked candidates. TxPs are expected to utilize kidneys based on the merits of performing a transplant for each candidate independently of other candidates. However, they frequently utilize kidneys for lower-ranked candidates. This phenomenon is called list diving. The prevalence of list diving has been documented in the literature but its impact on post-transplant outcomes has not been studied. Moreover, all of the reasons why TxPs exercise list diving are not observed in archival data. Therefore, we examine whether utilization decisions that occur either before or concurrently with multiple declines (referred to as batch turn downs) of higher-ranked candidates result in higher recipient and graft survival after accounting for treatment endogeneity. The out-of-sequence transplants identified via the time-based criterion are referred to as targeted placements (TPs). Such transplants signal TxPs' exercise of clinical judgment. We find that TPs reduce the waiting time for recipients (average time to transplant: 2.20 years for TP recipients vs. 2.64 years for non-targeted recipients, p-value < 0.01) while lengthening it for skipped candidates (average wait time until the first offer: 1.64 years for skipped candidates vs. 1.37 years for non-skipped candidates, p-value < 0.01). However, TPs do not significantly improve the survival chances of recipients in aggregate, despite the shortened waiting time. Concurrently, TPs prolong skipped candidates' waiting time and the extra wait does not improve survival chances of those among them who eventually receive transplants.
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.