ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Education Intervention for Evaluation and Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: A randomized trial.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02342119 (Increasing Equity in Transplant Evaluation and Living Donor Kidney Transplantation), which is not on this 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.
Increasing Equity in Transplant Evaluation and Living Donor Kidney Transplantation
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Kidney transplantation (KT) evaluation is a complex, lengthy process; and living donor KT (LDKT) is the optimal treatment for kidney failure. Interventions at the start of evaluation may improve evaluation completion and LDKT rates. This study tested whether (a) an educational booklet and video (the "Talking About Living Kidney donation" [TALK] intervention) increased evaluation completion and LDKT when delivered under a streamlined KT evaluation program; and (b) if no effects found, explore differential effects by psychosocial/sociocultural factors (e.g., healthcare-related discrimination). Methods: We conducted a randomized-controlled trial of the TALK intervention using permuted block randomization at an urban transplant center. Participants were enrolled 05/2015-06/2018; follow-up through 08/2022. Staff were blinded to block size, not allocation. Fine-Gray proportional hazards models examined intent-to-treat and per-protocol approaches. Primary outcomes were the cumulative incidence of evaluation completion and LDKT receipt. We explored interaction analyses by psychosocial/sociocultural factors and TALK-assignment. Results: Among 1108 participants (574 [52%] TALK, 534 [48%] No-TALK; median age: 59.13 [IQR: 48.92-67.10]; 243 [22%] Black, 783 [71%] White, 82 [7%] Other; 695 [63%] male), TALK did not significantly improve evaluation completion (sub-distribution hazard [SHR]=1.06; 95% CI: 0.92-1.22) or LDKT receipt (SHR=0.83; 95% CI: 0.55-1.25) in intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. In exploratory per-protocol analyses, discrimination significantly modified the effect of TALK on evaluation completion (SHR=0.42; 95% CI: 0.29-0.61). The "No-Discrimination" TALK participants had greater evaluation completion than No-TALK (SHR=1.32; 95% CI: 1.10-1.58), but the "Discrimination" TALK participants had lower evaluation completion than No-TALK (SHR=0.56; 95% CI: 0.41-0.77). Conclusions: Despite streamlined care, TALK did not improve evaluation completion or LDKT rates. A significant interaction in the per-protocol analyses for evaluation completion suggests prior healthcare-related discrimination may limit educational intervention effectiveness. Future studies should explore approaches that address systemic barriers and complement, rather than rely on, educational strategies to promote LDKT (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02342119).
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.