van der Vliet 2001

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Duration of study: not reported Duration of follow‐up: 18.3 ± 2.7 months
Participants	Country: Netherlands Setting: multicentre Donor characteristics Mean age ± SD: 36.6 ± 5.4 years Number of DCD: all 38 (76 kidneys) Sex (M/F): not reported Inclusion criteria: all consecutive 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): not given but there were "no significant differences" between the SCS and MP groups
Interventions	Machine perfusion Gambro pulsatile perfusion machine using Belzer's solution Static cold storage UW solution Mean CIT Longer in the MP groups, but this was not statistically significant: 23.0 ± 1.3 hours in the SCS group and 25.0 ± 1.0 hours in the MP group
Outcomes	DGF One‐year graft survival SCr at 3 months
Notes	One kidney from each pair assigned to MP and the other to SCS 76 kidneys from 38 consecutive donors. All were DCD donors 5 patients were lost to follow up, and data for their DGF rate was not reported. Although not stated, further patients must have been lost to follow up before 1 year, as only percentages are given for graft survival, and these do not result in integers for the numbers of grafts lost, if all of the 71 recipients were followed up. This prohibits survival data from being used in the meta analysis Funding source: not reported
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