ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2026
Influence of HIV Status on Organ Procurement and Allocation: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Australian Transplant Providers.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: People with HIV (PWH) experience disparate access to solid organ transplantation (SOT) but are eligible to be organ recipients and donors in Australia. Clinician decision-making about the allocation and utilization of organs is central to transplant access. This study aimed to determine the influence of HIV infection, and other key attributes, in decision-making about SOT recipients and donors. Methods: We conducted 2 discrete choice experiment (DCE) surveys, using a D-efficient design, among Australian transplant providers. Clinicians were presented with 6 hypothetical SOT recipients and donor pairs and asked to nominate a preferred candidate based on 8 recipient and 6 donor attributes. The DCEs were hosted in Qualtrics and distributed via professional networks. Relative attribute importance was calculated as the percent contribution of each attribute by dividing its utility range by the total of all attribute utility ranges. Results: Ninety-five respondents completed the recipient, while 87 completed the donor DCE. Most respondents (83.5%) were kidney or liver organ specialists. Expected survival without a transplant was the most influential attribute in the selection (relative importance, 23.1%) of a recipient, while HIV was the least influential factor (0.4%). Conversely, HIV status was the second most important attribute in donor selection (26.6%), behind only organ quality (32.0%). Conclusions: HIV status had limited influence on the choice of transplant recipients but was the second most influential factor in donor selection. Our results suggest that clinicians' decisions are guided primarily by medical urgency, not HIV status, when choosing a recipient, but that residual concern remains about the use of donors with HIV.
Indexed as
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.