Table 2.

Results and risk of bias by outcome for RCTs (all education intervention strategies)

Ref.No. of ParticipantsOutcomesDirection of EffectP ValueRisk of Bias
InterventionControlInterventionControlRandom Sequence GenerationAllocation ConcealmentBlinding of Outcome AssessmentNo Incomplete Outcome DataNo Selective Reporting
No. of living donor transplants
 Rodrigue et al. (16)63693321+0.01???X?
 Ismail et al. (19)39b41b174+0.003
No. of living donor evaluations
 Rodrigue et al. (16)63693824+0.005???X?
 Ismail et al. (19)3941257+<0.001
No. of contacts with transplant center from potential living donors
 Barnieh et al. (18)505042+>0.05
 Rodrigue et al. (16)63695244+0.02???X?
 Ismail et al. (19)39b41b2913+<0.001
No. of potential donors asked
 Pradel et al. (17)1071072635NR???
No. of potential donors identified
 Boulware et al. (20)c43441210+>0.05?
Discussion of living donation
 Pradel et al. (17)1071075753+NR???
 Boulware et al. (20)43442011+0.05?
Stated intent to engage in living donation
 Piccoli et al. (14)808659595485=NR??X?
 Thornton et al. (15)44350996%a97%a=NR????
  • +, positive direction of effect in favor of the intervention; ?, unclear risk of bias; X, high risk of bias; ✓, low risk of bias; —, negative direction of effect in favor of the intervention; NR, not reported; =, means that there is no difference in the direction of effect between the two groups.

  • a Only proportion reported.

  • b Population after censoring for death and deceased donor transplant.

  • c Intervention without social worker.