ArticleCureus2026
Examining Disparities in Access to Kidney Transplant Listing Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite high dialysis prevalence, access to kidney transplant waitlisting remains limited, with persistent socioeconomic and racial disparities. Prior studies have not captured patients evaluated but not listed for transplantation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine-based evaluations may have further widened these gaps. We examined transplant evaluation and waitlisting before and during the pandemic at a large urban transplant center. PURPOSE: We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic would adversely affect access to listing for kidney transplant (KT) for transplant candidates from minority ethnic groups. We evaluated differences in listing for kidney transplant between pre- and peri-pandemic eras, in-person (IPE) and telemedicine (TME) evaluations, and associations with race/ethnicity and other socioeconomic factors.
methodsA retrospective chart review of 1061 KT evaluations included pre-pandemic (March 13, 2019, to March 13, 2020) and peri-pandemic (March 14, 2020, to March 14, 2021) eras. Categorical data are presented as proportions and frequencies, and continuous data as means ± standard deviation or medians ± interquartile range. Independent group t-tests and Fisher's exact tests were used for bivariate comparisons.
resultsA total of 629 (59%) candidate evaluations were pre-pandemic, and 430 (41%) were peri-pandemic. Of these, 734 (72%) were IPE and 288 (28%) were TME. Overall, 553 (54%) candidates were denied listing for medical (310) and social (184) reasons. Peri-pandemic evaluations (p = 0.002), employment (p < 0.001), TME (p < 0.001), and mental health (p = 0.009) were associated with listing. Positive assessments of social support and overall social work assessment were associated with listing (p = 0.002; p < 0.001). Better social support was associated with listing pre-pandemic (p = 0.001) but not peri-pandemic (p = 0.769). Race/ethnicity (p = 0.951), employment (p = 0.202), and mental health (p = 0.742) were similar pre- and peri-pandemic. Race/ethnicity was not associated with listing (p = 0.809).
conclusionOverall, more candidates were listed for KT during the pandemic than before, despite fewer evaluations. This increase was associated with TME but not with race/ethnicity. Employment and mental health were similar in both eras despite pandemic stressors. Denial for social reasons mostly affected minority candidates, which warrants further study.
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.