Methods |
|
|
Participants |
|
|
Interventions | Machine perfusion
Static cold storage
Mean CIT
|
|
Outcomes |
|
|
Notes |
|
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Paired design with one kidney randomly assigned to each group. No information on how or at what stage the randomisation was done |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Too little information was given to allow assessment of allocation concealment |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No blinding, but the difference in CIT between the arms was not statistically significantly different |
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 | Unclear risk | 5/76 lost to follow‐up, with no information on DGF. No explanation given for the patients lost to follow up, but similar numbers lost from each group |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Appropriate outcome measures, with each reported in the results section |
Other bias | Unclear risk | Very concise materials and methods section so difficult to assess level of bias |