Systematic Review: Kidney Transplantation Compared With Dialysis in Clinically Relevant Outcomes

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Individual studies indicate that kidney transplantation is associated with lower mortality and improved quality of life compared with chronic dialysis treatment. We did a systematic review to summarize the benefits of transplantation, aiming to identify characteristics associated with especially large or small relative benefit. Results were not pooled because of expected diversity inherent to observational studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist and items related to time-to-event analysis techniques. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to February 2010. Cohort studies comparing adult chronic dialysis patients with kidney transplantation recipients for clinical outcomes were selected. We identified 110 eligible studies with a total of 1 922 300 participants. Most studies found significantly lower mortality associated with transplantation, and the relative magnitude of the benefit seemed to increase over time (p < 0.001). Most studies also found that the risk of cardiovascular events was significantly reduced among transplant recipients. Quality of life was significantly and substantially better among transplant recipients. Despite increases in the age and comorbidity of contemporary transplant recipients, the relative benefits of transplantation seem to be increasing over time. These findings validate current attempts to increase the number of people worldwide that benefit from kidney transplantation. ©2011 The Authors Journal compilation©2011 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

Related collections

Most cited references 129

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

D F Stroup, J A Berlin, S C Morton … (2000)

Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.

0 comments Cited 2523 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions

S H Downs, C N Black (1998)

0 comments Cited 671 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant.

R A Wolfe, V. B. Ashby, E L Milford … (1999)

The extent to which renal allotransplantation - as compared with long-term dialysis - improves survival among patients with end-stage renal disease is controversial, because those selected for transplantation may have a lower base-line risk of death. In an attempt to distinguish the effects of patient selection from those of transplantation itself, we conducted a longitudinal study of mortality in 228,552 patients who were receiving long-term dialysis for end-stage renal disease. Of these patients, 46,164 were placed on a waiting list for transplantation, 23,275 of whom received a first cadaveric transplant between 1991 and 1997. The relative risk of death and survival were assessed with time-dependent nonproportional-hazards analysis, with adjustment for age, race, sex, cause of end-stage renal disease, geographic region, time from first treatment for end-stage renal disease to placement on the waiting list, and year of initial placement on the list. Among the various subgroups, the standardized mortality ratio for the patients on dialysis who were awaiting transplantation (annual death rate, 6.3 per 100 patient-years) was 38 to 58 percent lower than that for all patients on dialysis (annual death rate, 16.1 per 100 patient-years). The relative risk of death during the first 2 weeks after transplantation was 2.8 times as high as that for patients on dialysis who had equal lengths of follow-up since placement on the waiting list, but at 18 months the risk was much lower (relative risk, 0.32; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.35; P<0.001). The likelihood of survival became equal in the two groups within 5 to 673 days after transplantation in all the subgroups of patients we examined. The long-term mortality rate was 48 to 82 percent lower among transplant recipients (annual death rate, 3.8 per 100 patient-years) than patients on the waiting list, with relatively larger benefits among patients who were 20 to 39 years old, white patients, and younger patients with diabetes. Among patients with end-stage renal disease, healthier patients are placed on the waiting list for transplantation, and long-term survival is better among those on the waiting list who eventually undergo transplantation.