Table 2.

Results and risk of bias by outcome for RCTs (all education intervention strategies)

Ref.	No. of Participants		Outcomes		Direction of Effect	P Value	Risk of Bias
	Intervention	Control	Intervention	Control			Random Sequence Generation	Allocation Concealment	Blinding of Outcome Assessment	No Incomplete Outcome Data	No Selective Reporting
No. of living donor transplants
Rodrigue et al. (16)	63	69	33	21	+	0.01	?	?	?	X	?
Ismail et al. (19)	39b	41b	17	4	+	0.003	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
No. of living donor evaluations
Rodrigue et al. (16)	63	69	38	24	+	0.005	?	?	?	X	?
Ismail et al. (19)	39	41	25	7	+	<0.001	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
No. of contacts with transplant center from potential living donors
Barnieh et al. (18)	50	50	4	2	+	>0.05	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Rodrigue et al. (16)	63	69	52	44	+	0.02	?	?	?	X	?
Ismail et al. (19)	39b	41b	29	13	+	<0.001	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
No. of potential donors asked
Pradel et al. (17)	107	107	26	35	—	NR	✓	?	?	✓	?
No. of potential donors identified
Boulware et al. (20)c	43	44	12	10	+	>0.05	✓	✓	?	✓	✓
Discussion of living donation
Pradel et al. (17)	107	107	57	53	+	NR	✓	?	?	✓	?
Boulware et al. (20)	43	44	20	11	+	0.05	✓	✓	?	✓	✓
Stated intent to engage in living donation
Piccoli et al. (14)	808	659	595	485	=	NR	?	✓	?	X	?
Thornton et al. (15)	443	509	96%a	97%a	=	NR	?	✓	?	?	?

+, positive direction of effect in favor of the intervention; ?, unclear risk of bias; X, high risk of bias; ✓, low risk of bias; —, negative direction of effect in favor of the intervention; NR, not reported; =, means that there is no difference in the direction of effect between the two groups.

^aOnly proportion reported.

^bPopulation after censoring for death and deceased donor transplant.

^cIntervention without social worker.