Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Oct 1;108(10):e321-e326.
doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000005043. Epub 2024 Apr 30.

Organ Donation and Transplantation Registries Across the Globe: A Review of the Current State

Affiliations
Review

Organ Donation and Transplantation Registries Across the Globe: A Review of the Current State

Christie Rampersad et al. Transplantation. .

Abstract

Background: The current landscape of organ donation and transplantation (ODT) registries is not well established. This narrative review sought to identify and characterize the coverage, structure, and data capture of ODT registries globally.

Methods: We conducted a literature search using Ovid Medline and web searches to identify ODT registries from 2000 to 2023. A list of ODT registries was compiled based on publications of registry design, studies, and reports. Extracted data elements included operational features of registries and the types of donor and recipient data captured.

Results: We identified 129 registries encompassing patients from all continents except Antarctica. Most registries were active, received funding from government or professional societies, were national in scope, included both adult and pediatric patients, and reported patient-level data. Registries included kidney (n = 99), pancreas (n = 32), liver (n = 44), heart (n = 35), lung (n = 30), intestine (n = 15), and islet cell (n = 5) transplants. Most registries captured donor data (including living versus deceased) and recipient features (including demographics, cause of organ failure, and posttransplant outcomes) but there was underreporting of other domains (eg, donor comorbidities, deceased donor referral rates, waitlist statistics).

Conclusions: This review highlights existing ODT registries globally and serves as a call for increased visibility and transparency in data management and reporting practices. We propose that standards for ODT registries, a common data model, and technical platforms for collaboration, will enable a high-functioning global ODT system responsive to the needs of transplant candidates, recipients, and donors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Hoque DME, Kumari V, Hoque M, et al. Impact of clinical registries on quality of patient care and clinical outcomes: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0183667.
    1. Godown J, Cantor R, Koehl D, et al. Practice variation in the diagnosis of acute rejection among pediatric heart transplant centers: an analysis of the pediatric heart transplant society (PHTS) registry. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2021;40:1550–1559.
    1. Tran Z, Hernandez R, Madrigal J, et al. Center-level variation in transplant rates following the heart allocation policy change. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7:277–285.
    1. Tsampalieros A, Knoll GA, Fergusson N, et al. Center variation and the effect of center and provider characteristics on clinical outcomes in kidney transplantation: a systematic review of the evidence. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2017;4:2054358117735523.
    1. Dharnidharka VR, Naik AS, Axelrod DA, et al. Center practice drives variation in choice of US kidney transplant induction therapy: a retrospective analysis of contemporary practice. Transpl Int. 2018;31:198–211.

MeSH terms