Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42052287›Full record

ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2026

Influence of HIV Status on Organ Procurement and Allocation: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Australian Transplant Providers.

David W J Griffin, Warittha Tieosapjaroen, Karl Vaz, Gopal Basu, William R Mulley, Sakhee Kotecha, Kovi Levin, Angeline Leet, Greg Snell, James H McMahon and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

David W J GriffinDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Alfred Hospital and Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9249-1780
Warittha TieosapjaroenSchool of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9712-9262
Karl VazVictorian Liver Transplant Unit, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6427-6140
Gopal BasuSchool of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
William R MulleyDepartment of Nephrology, Monash Health and Department of Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Sakhee KotechaLung Transplant Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Kovi LevinLung Transplant Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Angeline LeetAlfred Heart Transplant Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8470-1602
Greg SnellLung Transplant Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
James H McMahonDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Alfred Hospital and Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1460-5572
Jennifer F HoyDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Alfred Hospital and Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6948-7086
Jason J OngSchool of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5784-7403

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

health equityHIVorgan allocationorgan procurementsolid organ transplantation

Identifiers

PMID42052287
PMCPMC13112435

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.