The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of organ donation and transplantation rates between opt-out and opt-in systems
Open accessAbstract
Studies comparing opt-out and opt-in approaches to organ donation have generally suggested higher donation and transplantation rates in countries with an opt-out strategy. We compared organ donation and transplantation rates between countries with opt-out versus opt-in systems to investigate possible differences in the contemporary era. Data were analysed for 35 countries registered with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (17 countries classified as opt-out, 18 classified as opt-in) and obtained organ donation and transplantation rates for 2016 from the Global Observatory for Donation and Transplantation. Compared to opt-in countries, opt-out countries had fewer living donors per million population (4.8 versus 15.7, respectively) with no significant difference in deceased donors (20.3 versus 15.4, respectively). Overall, no significant difference was observed in rates of kidney (35.2 versus 42.3 respectively), non-renal (28.7 versus 20.9, respectively), or total solid organ transplantation (63.6 versus 61.7, respectively). In a multivariate linear regression model, an opt-out system was independently predictive of fewer living donors but was not associated with the number of deceased donors or with transplantation rates. Apart from the observed difference in the rates of living donation, our data demonstrate no significant difference in deceased donation or solid organ transplantation activity between opt-out versus opt-in countries. This suggests that other barriers to organ donation must be addressed, even in settings where consent for donation is presumed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: A cross-country study
Abadie, A., & Gay, S. (2006) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.01.003 · Cited by 517
Impact of presumed consent for organ donation on donation rates: a systematic review
Rithalia, A., McDaid, C., Suekarran, S., Myers, L., & Sowden, A. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a3162 · Cited by 340
Factors leading to the discard of deceased donor kidneys in the United States
Mohan, S., Chiles, M. C., Patzer, R. E., Pastan, S. O., Husain, S. A., Carpenter, D. J., Dube, G. K., Crew, R. J., Ratner, L. E., & Cohen, D. J. (2018) · Kidney International · doi:10.1016/j.kint.2018.02.016 · Cited by 266
How Spain Reached 40 Deceased Organ Donors per Million Population
Matesanz, R., Domínguez-Gil, B., Coll, E., Mahíllo, B., & Marazuela, R. (2017) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/ajt.14104 · Cited by 263
Shepherd, L., O’Carroll, R. E., & Ferguson, E. (2014) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0131-4 · Cited by 233
The meaning of default options for potential organ donors
Davidai, S., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. D. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1211695109 · Cited by 169
Increasing the Use of Kidneys From Unconventional and High-Risk Deceased Donors
Heilman, R. L., Mathur, A. K., Smith, M. L., Kaplan, B. E., & Reddy, K. S. (2016) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/ajt.13867 · Cited by 83
Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1091721 · Cited by 35
Cited by
Citizens Versus the Internet: Confronting Digital Challenges With Cognitive Tools
Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2020) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100620946707 · Cited by 479
Organ donation in the US and Europe: The supply vs demand imbalance
Lewis, A., Koukoura, A., Tsianos, G.-I., Gargavanis, A. A., Nielsen, A. A., & Vassiliadis, E. (2021) · Transplantation Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.trre.2020.100585 · Cited by 359
Changing Behavior Using the Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2020) · The Handbook of Behavior Change · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.002 · Cited by 266
Changing Behavior Using the Model of Action Phases
Keller, L., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2020) · The Handbook of Behavior Change · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.006 · Cited by 147
Metadata
- Authors
- Arshad, A., Anderson, B., & Sharif, A.
- Venue
- Kidney International
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-06
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1453-1460
- ISSN
- 0085-2538 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2921549192
- Cited by
- 285
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 35.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of organ donation and transplantation rates between opt-out and opt-in systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.kint.2019.01.036
- The paper
- Arshad, A., Anderson, B., & Sharif, A. (2019). Comparison of organ donation and transplantation rates between opt-out and opt-in systems. Kidney International. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kint.2019.01.036
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.