Veller 1994

Methods	Study design: unclear whether this study was randomised or quasi‐randomised Duration of study: Total study duration was 35 months Duration of follow‐up: not reported
Participants	Country: South Africa Setting: not reported Donor characteristics Mean age ± SD (years): not reported Number of DCD: 0 Sex (M/F); not reported Inclusion criteria: DBD victims of trauma who were haemodynamically stable and who continued to pass urine Exclusion criteria: one of the kidneys was transplanted into a recipient who had already received a kidney transplant Recipient characteristics Inclusion criteria: not reported Exclusion criteria: not reported. one of the kidneys was transplanted into a recipient who had already received a kidney transplant Sex (M/F): not reported Mean age, range (years): MP group (34, 11 to 53); SCS group (53, 1 to 56)
Interventions	Machine perfusion Waters Inc. t000 pulsatile perfusion machine (Rochester, Minnesota, USA) using cryoprecipitated plasma Static cold storage UW solution Mean CIT Did not differ significantly between the groups; 18 (7‐34) in the SCS group and 19 (7‐33) in the MP group
Outcomes	DGF Functional DGF based on creatinine
Notes	36 kidneys from 18 donors. All were DBD donors. One kidney from each pair assigned to MP and the other to SCS The manuscript presents two studies, a paired study of 18 donors, and a retrospective analysis of previous cases. Only the data from the paired population has been collected. This study has a small sample size, and took place over a long duration. "Only donors of excellent quality were used for the study". Funding source: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	It does not state how or at what stage the decision was made as to which kidney would receive MP and which would receive SCS. Moreover it is unclear whether the study was randomised or quasi‐randomised.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No blinding, but comparable CIT between the groups, and the study does describe randomisation of kidneys in terms of allocation to recipients
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 is available for all included participants
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Suitable outcome measures with results reported for each
Other bias	Unclear risk	Relatively short manuscript lacking details of methods of randomisation