Merion 1990

Methods	Study design: quasi‐RCT Duration of study: April 1987 to November 1987 Duration of follow‐up: 30 days
Participants	Country: Michigan, USA Setting: Donor characteristics Mean age ± SD (years): not reported Number of DCD: not reported Number of ECD: not reported Sex (M/F); not reported Inclusion criteria: not reported 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 (39 ± 14); SCS group (40 ± 10)
Interventions	Machine perfusion Waters Mox‐100 perfusion device using silica gel fraction solution Static cold storage Euro‐Collins solution Mean CIT Mean time did not differ significantly between the groups: 21.8 hours in the SCS group and 21.0 hours in the MP group
Outcomes	Requirement for dialysis Creatinine at day 1, 7 and 30
Notes	102 kidneys from 51 donors One kidney from each pair assigned to MP and the other to SCS, alternating between right and left The study used a paired alternating design, with all donors between April and November 1987 being included, except for nine donors, for which good explanations were given for their exclusion As this is an older study, the CIT are relatively long Funding source: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Although an alternating design was used, all consecutive donors between two time periods were considered for inclusion. 51 of the 60 donors were included, and clear reasons were given for exclusion of the nine donors. This and the fact that the study used a paired design, means that the selection bias is unlikely to have altered the results of this study
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	See random sequence generation above
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No blinding but this is unlikely to affect the outcome, especially as there was no difference in CIT between the groups
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	Follow up data for all included patients and clear explanations for the nine excluded patients
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Appropriate outcomes, well reported
Other bias	Low risk	A thorough descriptive methods section