ReviewMolecular diagnosis & therapy2010
Detecting adaptive immunity: applications in transplantation monitoring.
Review in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Induction of immunological tolerance to myelinogenic glial-restricted progenitor allografts.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2019Article
- T-regulatory cell-mediated immune tolerance as a potential immunotherapeutic strategy to facilitate graft survival.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent decades, continuous improvements in immunosuppressive therapy have led to a significant increase in kidney allograft survival. Despite innovative developments and improvements in immunosuppression, chronic allograft injury and late graft loss still remain major causes of morbidity and mortality. In clinical practice, long-term immunosuppression is adapted and fine-tuned according to drug levels, kidney function, and biopsy results. As an invasive procedure, indication biopsy still represents an indispensible diagnostic gold standard. However, in an effort to further improve outcomes on the basis of individualized treatment, there is an urgent need for noninvasive assays, as well as biomarkers, to more accurately monitor allogeneic responses and predict the risk of acute and chronic allograft rejection. This article discusses strategies for immune monitoring of T-cell responsiveness and humoral alloreactivity. Furthermore, new microarray and gene profiling data are highlighted, which may identify hyporesponsive transplant recipients who could benefit from a reduction or even withdrawal of immunosuppression. Finally, supplementary transplant risk assessment markers, such as soluble CD30 and urinary effector molecule analysis, are discussed as promising new tools. Recent developments and improvements in test principles to monitor and predict allograft immunity are encouraging and may herald the transition of present empiric immunosuppression to individualized immunosuppressive treatment. Nonetheless, before implementation of immune monitoring in routine clinical practice, there is still a need for prospective trials designed to clarify the actual diagnostic potential of individual test systems in a therapeutic context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20121285What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.