Matsuno 1994

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Duration of study: not reported Duration of follow‐up: 1 month
Participants	Country: Japan Setting: single centre Donor characteristics Mean age: 51.1 years Number of DCD donors: 13 Donor sex (M/F): not reported Inclusion criteria: DCD donors Exclusion criteria: not reported Recipient characteristics Inclusion criteria: not reported Exclusion criteria: not reported Sex (M/F): not reported Mean age ± SD (years): MP group (41 ± 7.9); SCS group (38.5 ± 10.1)
Interventions	Machine perfusion APS‐02 (Nikiso) machine using cryoprecipitated plasma Static cold storage UW or Euro‐Collins solution Mean CIT Significantly different between the groups; 6.08 ± 2.93 hours in the SCS and 11.9 ± 3.20 hours in HMP (P < 0.05)
Outcomes	DGF: requirement for dialysis during the first week; labelled as post‐transplant ATN by the study Requirement for dialysis at 2 weeks Duration of dialysis One month graft survival
Notes	26 kidneys from 13 donors One kidney from each pair assigned to MP and the other to SCS There was a significantly longer CIT in the MP arm, suggesting that people were happy to leave perfused organs for longer The rate of DGF found by this study was very high, which could explain how the study achieved statistical significance even with such a small sample size Funding source: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The study does not specify how, or at what time, the randomisation takes place. It only actually mentions that the study is randomised in the concluding paragraph
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The study does not specify how, or at what time, the randomisation takes place. It only actually mentions that the study is randomised in the concluding paragraph
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding and there was a significant difference in CIT, suggesting that the groups were treated differently. Prolonged CIT is likely to affect the primary outcome of DGF
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	Low risk	Data available for all included donors
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The outcomes reported were appropriate and expected
Other bias	High risk	The study does not state the duration of the study, whether they are consecutive cases, or how inclusion/randomisation took place