TABLE 5.

Sequential mediation analyses: effects of social deprivation on preemptive kidney transplantation

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4		Model 5
	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI
Natural direct effect	0.69	[0.61-0.78]	0.70	[0.62-0.80]	0.70	[0.62-0.80]	0.71	[0.62-0.81]	0.72	[0.63-0.82]
Natural indirect effect	0.92	[0.89-0.95]	0.90	[0.87-0.94]	0.90	[0.87-0.94]	0.90	[0.86-0.93]	0.89	[0.85-0.92]
Total effect	0.64	[0.56-0.73]	0.64	[0.56-0.73]	0.64	[0.55-0.73]	0.64	[0.55-0.73]	0.64	[0.55-0.73]

The analyses were adjusted for confounders: age, sex, diabetes, and underlying nephropathy.

Model 1: mediation analysis with a single mediator—living-donor transplantation.

Model 2: mediation analysis with 2 mediators—living-donor transplantation and positive CMV serology.

Model 3: mediation analysis with 3 mediators—living-donor transplantation, positive CMV serology, and HLA immunization.

Model 4: mediation analysis with 4 mediators—living-donor transplantation, positive CMV serology, HLA immunization, and positive hepatitis C serology.

Model 5: complete mediation analysis with the 5 mediators described in the DAG—living-donor transplantation, positive CMV serology, HLA immunization, positive hepatitis C serology, and blood group B.

CI, confidence interval; CMV, cytomegalovirus; DAG, directed acyclic graph; OR, odds ratio.