Kwiatkowski 1996

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Duration of study: not reported Duration of follow‐up: 10 years
Participants	Country: Poland Setting: single centre Donor characteristics Mean age (range): 36 years (5 to 70) Number of DCD: 37 (74 kidneys) Sex (M/F): 24/14 Inclusion criteria: DCD donors Exclusion criteria: not reported. Recipient characteristics Inclusion criteria: not reported Exclusion criteria: not reported sex (M/F): MP group (18/19); SCS group (21/16) Mean age ± SD (years): MP group (37 ± 12); SCS group (40 ± 15)
Interventions	Machine perfusion MOX‐100 DCM disposable cassette using MPSII solution Static cold storage Preservation solution was not reported Mean CIT Significantly different between the groups; 27.5 hours in the SCS and 34.5 hours in the MP group (P < 0.05)
Outcomes	DGF Creatinine 10‐year graft survival Return to dialysis
Notes	74 kidneys from 37 donors. All were DCD donors One kidney from each pair assigned to MP and the other to SCS There were two main manuscripts, one in 1999 which presented to original data, and one in 2009 publishing the 10‐year graft survival. Both manuscripts are vague and ambiguous in places. The graft survival is given as a percentage only, with no information on how many people were followed up for the full 10 years The MP kidneys were routinely transplanted after the SCS kidneys, and therefore suffered significantly longer CIT Funding source: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Very few details given, only that the kidneys were paired and randomised
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Very few details given, only that the kidneys were paired and randomised
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding and the kidneys were transplanted such that the SCS kidney was routinely transplanted before the MP kidney
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No blinding, but outcome measurements are unlikely to be affected by the lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	No reason given as to why there was no DGF information on 6 patients. In terms of 10‐year graft survival, this was only given as a percentage with no indication to how many patients were followed up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	A lot of data was not reported, and most of the data reported was incomplete or reported ambiguously
Other bias	High risk	A relatively short manuscript. CIT was significantly different between the groups