2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.07.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Outcome measures in solid organ donor management research: a systematic review

Abstract: BackgroundTo systematically review published outcome measures across randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of donor management interventions. MethodsThe systematic review was conducted in accordance with recommendations by the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA statement. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science as well as trial databases from 1980 to December 2019 for RCTs of donor management interventions. ResultsTwenty-two RCTs (n = 3432 donors) were included in our analysis. Fourteen RCTs (63.6%) repor… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 54 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Clinical trials studying levothyroxine, however, have failed to elucidate a beneficial effect of levothyroxine therapy on the organs of brain-dead donors[ 7 , 16 - 19 ]. Limitations to these studies include inconsistent outcome measures and, in the case of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), small numbers of hemodynamically unstable patients[ 19 , 20 ]. In addition, quality RCTs evaluating the benefit of combination hormone replacement therapy are lacking[ 21 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clinical trials studying levothyroxine, however, have failed to elucidate a beneficial effect of levothyroxine therapy on the organs of brain-dead donors[ 7 , 16 - 19 ]. Limitations to these studies include inconsistent outcome measures and, in the case of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), small numbers of hemodynamically unstable patients[ 19 , 20 ]. In addition, quality RCTs evaluating the benefit of combination hormone replacement therapy are lacking[ 21 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%