Mozes 1985

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Duration of study: not reported Duration of follow‐up: 22 months.
Participants	Country: Illinois, USA Setting: multicentre Mean age ± SD (years) Donor: 26.5 (3‐61) Donor characteristics Number of DCD: 0 Sex (M/F); not reported Inclusion criteria: DBD donors with two kidneys suitable for transplant. "Criteria for donor selection was uniform for all participants" Exclusion criteria: not reported Recipient characteristics Inclusion criteria: not reported Exclusion criteria: not reported Sex (M/F): "There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to recipient characteristics such as sex". Numbers of males in each group not reported Mean age ± SD (years): not given but there were "no significant differences" between the SCS and MP group
Interventions	Machine perfusion Waters MOX‐100 pulsatile perfusion machine using silica gel plasma perfusate Static cold storage Euro‐Collin's solution. Mean CIT Mean CIT was longer in the MP group although this was not significant (P = 0.09): 32.7 in the SCS group versus 35.2 in the MP group
Outcomes	DGF (called post‐transplant ATN in the study but defined as requirement for dialysis in the first week) One‐year graft and patient survival 90 day creatinine
Notes	One kidney from each pair randomised to MP and the other to SCS 192 kidneys from 96 donors. However only 187 (94 SCS and 93 MP) kidneys were included in the study. All donors were DBD donors Significantly more kidneys in the MP group had CIT >36 hours, compared to the SCS group (P = 0.01). In the SCS group, the rate of DGF increased as CIT increased, whereas in the MP group rate of DGF was independent of CIT Funding source: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Recipient centres were informed of the preservation method used and left MP kidneys for longer; more kidneys had a CIT > 36 hours in the MP group (P = 0.01)
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	The 5 kidneys not used were as a result of "recipient unavailability" which is unlikely to be a source of bias. Thorough outcome data was reported for the remaining 187 patients
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Appropriate outcome measures, well reported
Other bias	Unclear risk	Limited methods section, as expected due to the date of the study