Frontiers in medicine · 2026
Quality indicators in living kidney donation for transplantation: a scoping review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pimentel Rafael Rodrigo Da Silva, Cezar Luiza Ribeiro, De Alcantara Nathalia Izilda Xavier, Muniz Carolina Miranda, Souza Íris Jardim, Martins Maristela Santini, Santos Marcelo José Dos
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Living kidney donation has increased worldwide due to the growing demand for transplants. This demand has created a need to measure the quality of this service using quality indicators. Recognizing the importance of these indicators, this review aimed to identify and categorize quality indicators in living kidney donation for transplantation.
METHOD: This scoping review was prepared according to the JBI method, previously registered in the Open Science Framework. The search was carried out between March and May 2023 in the following databases and libraries: Virtual Health Library, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, together with gray literature platforms, such as Google Scholar, OpenGrey (GreyNet), CAPES Theses and Dissertations, Global ETD Search (previously: Union Catalog), Open Access Theses and Dissertations. Additionally, 17 official websites from donation, transplantation, and quality institutions were consulted. The guiding question was: what quality indicators are used in living kidney donation? Data selection and extraction were performed in pairs with consensus rounds. Included were documents published in any language since 1980, the year solid organ transplantation was established as the most successful treatment, along with policies and practices to improve donation and transplantation. A descriptive analysis was conducted to present the results.
RESULTS: The literature search identified 3,095 records, of which 14 met the inclusion criteria. These studies reported 89 metric mentions, consolidated into 74 unified quality indicators. The indicators varied widely in definition and classification and were distributed across multiple stages of the living kidney donation process, with a substantial concentration in the living-donation phase.
CONCLUSION: The analysis revealed significant variations in the nomenclature and definitions of indicators as well as the unavailability of more detailed information.
METHOD: This scoping review was prepared according to the JBI method, previously registered in the Open Science Framework. The search was carried out between March and May 2023 in the following databases and libraries: Virtual Health Library, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, together with gray literature platforms, such as Google Scholar, OpenGrey (GreyNet), CAPES Theses and Dissertations, Global ETD Search (previously: Union Catalog), Open Access Theses and Dissertations. Additionally, 17 official websites from donation, transplantation, and quality institutions were consulted. The guiding question was: what quality indicators are used in living kidney donation? Data selection and extraction were performed in pairs with consensus rounds. Included were documents published in any language since 1980, the year solid organ transplantation was established as the most successful treatment, along with policies and practices to improve donation and transplantation. A descriptive analysis was conducted to present the results.
RESULTS: The literature search identified 3,095 records, of which 14 met the inclusion criteria. These studies reported 89 metric mentions, consolidated into 74 unified quality indicators. The indicators varied widely in definition and classification and were distributed across multiple stages of the living kidney donation process, with a substantial concentration in the living-donation phase.
CONCLUSION: The analysis revealed significant variations in the nomenclature and definitions of indicators as well as the unavailability of more detailed information.