Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 288

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Current situation of donation after circulatory death in European countries: Donation after circulatory death in the council of Europe

Domínguez-Gil, Beatriz, Haase-Kromwijk, Bernadette, Van Leiden, Hendrik, Neuberger, James, Coene, Leen, Morel, Philippe, Corinne, Antoine, Muehlbacher, Ferdinand, Brezovsky, Pavel, Costa, Alessandro Nanni, Rozental, Rafail, Matesanz, Rafael, on behalf of the European Committee (Partial Agreement) on Organ Transplantation. Council of Europe (CD-P-TO)·2011·Transplant International

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to describe the current situation of donation after circulatory death (DCD) in the Council of Europe, through a dedicated survey. Of 27 participating countries, only 10 confirmed any DCD activity, the highest one being described in Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (mainly controlled) and France and Spain (mainly uncontrolled). During 2000-2009, as DCD increased, donation after brain death (DBD) decreased about 20% in the three countries with a predominant controlled DCD activity, while DBD had increased in the majority of European countries. The number of organs recovered and transplanted per DCD increased along time, although it remained substantially lower compared with DBD. During 2000-2008, 5004 organs were transplanted from DCD (4261 kidneys, 505 livers, 157 lungs and 81 pancreas). Short-term outcomes of 2343 kidney recipients from controlled versus 649 from uncontrolled DCD were analyzed: primary non function occurred in 5% vs. 6.4% (P = NS) and delayed graft function in 50.2% vs. 75.7% (P < 0.001). In spite of this, 1 year graft survival was 85.9% vs. 88.9% (P = 0.04), respectively. DCD is increasingly accepted in Europe but still limited to a few countries. Controlled DCD might negatively impact DBD activity. The degree of utilization of DCD is lower compared with DBD. Short-term results of DCD are promising with differences between kidney recipients transplanted from controlled versus uncontrolled DCD, an observation to be further analyzed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2011.01257.x

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 288

Metadata

Authors
Domínguez-Gil, B., Haase-Kromwijk, B., Van Leiden, H., Neuberger, J., Coene, L., Morel, P., Corinne, A., Muehlbacher, F., Brezovsky, P., Costa, A. N., Rozental, R., Matesanz, R., & on behalf of the European Committee (Partial Agreement) on Organ Transplantation. Council of Europe (CD-P-TO)
Venue
Transplant International
Published
2011-04-19
Volume
24
Issue
7
Pages
676-686
ISSN
0934-0874 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2160995666
Cited by
288
References
20
FWCI
26.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Current situation of donation after circulatory death in European countries: Donation after circulatory death in the council of Europe. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2011.01257.x
The paper
Domínguez-Gil, B., Haase-Kromwijk, B., Van Leiden, H., Neuberger, J., Coene, L., Morel, P., Corinne, A., Muehlbacher, F., Brezovsky, P., Costa, A. N., Rozental, R., Matesanz, R., & on behalf of the European Committee (Partial Agreement) on Organ Transplantation. Council of Europe (CD-P-TO). (2011). Current situation of donation after circulatory death in European countries: Donation after circulatory death in the council of Europe. Transplant International. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2011.01257.x

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.