Alijani 1985

Methods	Study design: quasi‐RCT Duration of study: not reported Duration of follow‐up:
Participants	Country: Washington USA Setting: paired kidneys were transplanted at 22 institutions 58 kidneys from 29 donors. Originally there were 38 donors, but 8 were excluded because one kidney was discarded and 1 was excluded because preservation method was changed Donor characteristics Mean age ± SD (years): not reported Number of DCD: not reported Number of ECD: not reported Donor sex (M/F); not reported Inclusion criteria: not explicitly stated Exclusion criteria: not explicitly stated Recipient characteristics Inclusion criteria: not explicitly stated Exclusion criteria: not explicitly stated Recipient sex (M/F): not reported Mean age ± SD (years): not reported
Interventions	One kidney from each pair assigned to MP and the other to SCS, alternating between left and right kidneys Machine perfusion Waters Mox‐100 pulsatile perfusion machine using plasma protein fraction perfusate Static cold storage Solution: Euro‐Collins Mean CIT Time did not differ significantly between the groups: 29.68 hours in the SCS group and 32.50 hours in the MP group
Outcomes	DGF: requirement for dialysis during the first week; labelled as post‐transplant ATN by the study
Notes	A study with long CIT, which could explain the positive result despite small sample size. Although it is quasi‐randomised, it is 38 consecutive donors and the reasons for exclusions are clear and appropriate Kidneys which swapped groups were excluded Funding source: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Although it is quasi‐randomised, it is 38 consecutive donors and the reasons for exclusions are clear and appropriate. The fact that it is 38 consecutive donors means that selection bias is likely not a large source of bias
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 CIT was not significantly longer in either group
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 reported for all kidneys, and reason for exclusion of donors and discarding of kidneys was explained clearly
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Appropriate outcome clearly reported
Other bias	Unclear risk	Short methods section, as expected given the date of the study. Intention to treat analysis not performed, but this only affected one kidney pair