4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Marked variation in the definition and diagnosis of delayed graft function: a systematic review

Journal

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 23, Issue 9, Pages 2995-3003

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfn158

Keywords

delayed graft function; definition; diagnosis

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [K23DK064689] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [K23 DK064689, K23-DK064689] Funding Source: Medline
  3. PHS HHS [TGDK 07276] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The term delayed graft function (DGF) is commonly used to describe the need for dialysis after receiving a kidney transplant. DGF increases morbidity after transplantation, prolongs hospitalization and may lead to premature graft failure. Various definitions of DGF are used in the literature without a uniformly accepted technique to identify DGF. Methods. We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify all of the different definitions and diagnostic techniques to identify DGF. Results. We identified 18 unique definitions for DGF and 10 diagnostic techniques to identify DGF. Conclusions. The utilization of heterogeneous clinical criteria to define DGF has certain limitations. It will lead to delayed and sometimes inaccurate diagnosis of DGF. Hence a diagnostic test that identifies DGF reliably and early is necessary. Heterogeneity, in the definitions used for DGF, hinders the evolution of a diagnostic technique to identify DGF, which requires a gold standard definition. We are in need of a new definition that is uniformly accepted across the kidney transplant community. The new definition will be helpful in promoting better communication among transplant professionals and aids in comparing clinical studies of diagnostic techniques to identify DGF and thus may facilitate clinical trials of interventions for the treatment of DGF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available