Textbook Outcomes in Solid Transplantation: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.9 Q3 TRANSPLANTATION
Transplantation Direct Pub Date : 2024-09-17 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1097/TXD.0000000000001694
Alessandro Martinino, Joseph Matthew Ladowski, Davide Schilirò, Matthew G Hartwig, Dimitrios Moris, Andrew S Barbas
{"title":"Textbook Outcomes in Solid Transplantation: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Alessandro Martinino, Joseph Matthew Ladowski, Davide Schilirò, Matthew G Hartwig, Dimitrios Moris, Andrew S Barbas","doi":"10.1097/TXD.0000000000001694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The concept of TO is expanding across various surgical disciplines to establish a standardized, comprehensive quality benchmark. Traditional metrics such as 1-y patient and graft survival have been key for evaluating transplant program performance but are now deemed inadequate because of significant field advancements. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the applicability and validity of textbook outcome (TO) in the setting of solid organ transplantation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A structured search, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases on March 10, 2024.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen articles were identified for inclusion in this review. Of these, 2 studies addressed TO in heart transplantation, 3 in lung transplantation, 2 in kidney transplantation, and 7 in liver transplantation. A subgroup analysis was conducted to categorize the different definitions of TOs and identify the most common reasons for TO failure.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our systematic review highlights the ongoing efforts in the field of solid organ transplantation to define TO and emphasizes the importance of developing a universally recognized set of TO criteria for each type of transplant. TO provides a valuable framework for transplant centers to benchmark their performance against similar institutions on a risk-adjusted basis and to pinpoint specific areas for enhancing patient outcomes. Even the most successful programs may discover aspects within the composite outcome with scope for improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":23225,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation Direct","volume":"10 10","pages":"e1694"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11410326/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation Direct","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000001694","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TRANSPLANTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The concept of TO is expanding across various surgical disciplines to establish a standardized, comprehensive quality benchmark. Traditional metrics such as 1-y patient and graft survival have been key for evaluating transplant program performance but are now deemed inadequate because of significant field advancements. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the applicability and validity of textbook outcome (TO) in the setting of solid organ transplantation.

Methods: A structured search, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases on March 10, 2024.

Results: Fourteen articles were identified for inclusion in this review. Of these, 2 studies addressed TO in heart transplantation, 3 in lung transplantation, 2 in kidney transplantation, and 7 in liver transplantation. A subgroup analysis was conducted to categorize the different definitions of TOs and identify the most common reasons for TO failure.

Conclusions: Our systematic review highlights the ongoing efforts in the field of solid organ transplantation to define TO and emphasizes the importance of developing a universally recognized set of TO criteria for each type of transplant. TO provides a valuable framework for transplant centers to benchmark their performance against similar institutions on a risk-adjusted basis and to pinpoint specific areas for enhancing patient outcomes. Even the most successful programs may discover aspects within the composite outcome with scope for improvement.

实体器官移植的教科书成果:系统回顾
背景:TO 的概念正扩展到各个外科领域,以建立一个标准化的综合质量基准。患者和移植物 1 年存活率等传统指标一直是评估移植项目绩效的关键,但由于该领域的重大进展,这些指标现在已被认为不够充分。本系统综述旨在全面了解教科书结果(TO)在实体器官移植中的适用性和有效性:方法:2024 年 3 月 10 日,根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南,在 PubMed、Embase 和 Scopus 数据库中进行了结构化检索:结果:共确定了 14 篇文章纳入本综述。其中,2 项研究涉及心脏移植中的 TO,3 项研究涉及肺移植中的 TO,2 项研究涉及肾移植中的 TO,7 项研究涉及肝移植中的 TO。我们对不同定义的器官移植进行了分组分析,并确定了器官移植失败的最常见原因:我们的系统综述强调了实体器官移植领域为定义TO所做的不懈努力,并强调了为每种类型的移植制定一套普遍认可的TO标准的重要性。TO为移植中心提供了一个有价值的框架,使其可以在风险调整的基础上将自己的表现与同类机构进行比较,并确定提高患者疗效的具体领域。即使是最成功的项目也可能会发现综合结果中有待改进的方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Transplantation Direct
Transplantation Direct TRANSPLANTATION-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
193
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信