Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 200

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Drug Overdose Epidemic and Deceased-Donor Transplantation in the United States: A National Registry Study

Open access
Durand, Christine M., Bowring, Mary G., Thomas, Alvin G., Kucirka, Lauren M., Massie, Allan B., Cameron, Andrew, Desai, Niraj M., Sulkowski, Mark, Segev, Dorry L.·2018·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background: The epidemic of drug overdose deaths in the United States has led to an increase in organ donors. Objective: To characterize donors who died of overdose and to analyze outcomes among transplant recipients. Design: Prospective observational cohort study. Setting: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, 1 January 2000 to 1 September 2017. Participants: 138 565 deceased donors; 337 934 transplant recipients at 297 transplant centers. Measurements: The primary exposure was donor mechanism of death (overdose-death donor [ODD], trauma-death donor [TDD], or medical-death donor [MDD]). Patient and graft survival and organ discard (organ recovered but not transplanted) were compared using propensity score-weighted standardized risk differences (sRDs). Results: A total of 7313 ODDs and 19 897 ODD transplants (10 347 kidneys, 5707 livers, 2471 hearts, and 1372 lungs) were identified. Overdose-death donors accounted for 1.1% of donors in 2000 and 13.4% in 2017. They were more likely to be white (85.1%), aged 21 to 40 years (66.3%), infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) (18.3%), and increased-infectious risk donors (IRDs) (56.4%). Standardized 5-year patient survival was similar for ODD organ recipients compared with TDD organ recipients (sRDs ranged from 3.1% lower to 3.9% higher survival) and MDD organ recipients (sRDs ranged from 2.1% to 5.2% higher survival). Standardized 5-year graft survival was similar between ODD and TDD grafts (minimal difference for kidneys and lungs, marginally lower [sRD, -3.2%] for livers, and marginally higher [sRD, 1.9%] for hearts). Kidney discard was higher for ODDs than TDDs (sRD, 5.2%) or MDDs (sRD, 1.5%); standardization for HCV and IRD status attenuated this difference. Limitation: Inability to distinguish between opioid and nonopioid overdoses. Conclusion: In the United States, transplantation with ODD organs has increased dramatically, with noninferior outcomes in transplant recipients. Concerns about IRD behaviors and hepatitis C among donors lead to excess discard that should be minimized given the current organ shortage. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

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 · 10.7326/m17-2451

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 200

Metadata

Authors
Durand, C. M., Bowring, M. G., Thomas, A. G., Kucirka, L. M., Massie, A. B., Cameron, A., Desai, N. M., Sulkowski, M., & Segev, D. L.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2018-05-15
Volume
168
Issue
10
Pages
702-711
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2799302071
Cited by
200
References
4
FWCI
28.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: The Drug Overdose Epidemic and Deceased-Donor Transplantation in the United States: A National Registry Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/m17-2451
The paper
Durand, C. M., Bowring, M. G., Thomas, A. G., Kucirka, L. M., Massie, A. B., Cameron, A., Desai, N. M., Sulkowski, M., & Segev, D. L. (2018). The Drug Overdose Epidemic and Deceased-Donor Transplantation in the United States: A National Registry Study. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/m17-2451

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.