ReviewHerz2010
[Biomarker for diagnosis of rejection after heart transplantation].
Review in Herz, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart transplantation is an established therapeutic modality in patients with end-stage heart failure. In the 1st year after transplantation acute cellular rejection is still important. The diagnosis of acute cellular rejection is based on the histological evaluation of endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) specimens. EMB is an invasive procedure with a definite risk and poor tolerance in some patients. Imaging methods like echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging as well as intracardiac ECG have been used for noninvasive diagnosis of acute cellular rejection. In addition, a large number of circulating biomarkers have been evaluated for noninvasive diagnosis of rejection. B-type natriuretic peptide, troponin and inflammatory markers are the most important biomarkers in this field. Although these parameters are useful, none of them has the potential to replace EMB as the gold standard for diagnosis of rejection. In the near future microarray technology might get important for diagnosis of acute cellular rejection. Using microarray technique gene expression profiles can be detected, which are associated with an increased risk for rejection. Ongoing studies will demonstrate, whether microarrays can at least reduce the number of EMBs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.