Evidence mapPaperPMID 39894358Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons2025

The dynamics of deceased donor kidney transplant decision making: insights from studying individual clinicians' offer decisions.

Ellen Green, E Glenn Dutcher, Jesse D Schold, Darren Stewart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Multi-Listing Among Rural Kidney Transplant Recipients: A National Cohort Study.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ellen GreenCollege of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA. Electronic address: egreen7@asu.edu.
E Glenn DutcherDepartment of Economics, University of North Carolina-Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
Jesse D ScholdDepartment of Surgery, University of Colorado-Anschutz, Aurora, Colorado, USA; Department of Epidemiology, University of Colorado-Anschutz, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Darren StewartDepartment of Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

Identifying Behavioral Factors Contributing to High Discard Rate of Deceased Donor KidneysR01DK139337 · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · 2025 to 2025
$374k
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK139337NIDDK NIH HHS R21 DK128773
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the high demand, >7500 recovered kidneys annually go unused, with transplant centers showing significant variation in their offer acceptance practices. However, it remains unclear how much of this variation occurs between individual clinicians within the same center and its impact on allocation efficiency and equity. This study quantified the variability in kidney offer acceptance decisions attributable to clinicians vs centers and examined the role of donor quality in acceptance decisions. We analyzed national transplant registry data (from January 2016 to December 2020) linked to on-call records from 15 transplant centers, creating a clinician-level data set with 344 678 deceased donor kidney offers. The primary outcome was the variability in offer acceptance attributable to clinicians vs centers, quantified via hierarchical, mixed-effect logistic regression models. To complement kidney donor profile index as a measure of donor quality, we incorporated expected acceptance probability, adjusting for a broader set of donor characteristics and recipient factors. Both center-level (0.35; 95% CI: 0.15-0.79) and clinician-level (0.10; 95% CI: 0.06-0.18) variances were significant, with heterogeneity in the kidney donor profile index-acceptance association among clinicians. These results underscore the need for further research into the mechanisms driving the clinician-level variation and its implications for organ allocation efficacy, equity, and patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDecision MakingDonor SelectionKidney Failure, ChronicKidney TransplantationTissue and Organ ProcurementTissue DonorsAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRegistriesclinician decision makingdeceased donor kidneykidney donor profile index (KDPI)kidney transplantationoffer acceptanceorgan allocationorgan underutilizationtransplant center variation

Identifiers

PMID39894358
PMCPMC12221801

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.