ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2012
Pathological diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection in renal allograft without c4d staining, how much reliable?
Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2012. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundC4d as a part of complement activation process is a marker for detecting antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) and its positivity accompanied by positive donor specific antibody (DSA), and morphologic view of humoral rejection has been suggested to detect ABMR since 2003. MATERIALS AND
methods41 specimens of transplanted kidney biopsies gathered from 2006 to 2008 were evaluated for morphological changes on light microscopy, and nephro-pathologist made distinct diagnosis for all of specimens then c4d staining was done for all of them. The association between primary diagnosis without c4d staining and c4d scoring on peritubular capillaries and glomerular capillaries were evaluated to determine whether morphological changes were enough for distinct diagnosis or not.
resultsAcute tubular necrosis (ATN) 27%, interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IF&TA) 17%, and T cell mediated rejection (TCMR) 22% were the commonest diagnosis on light microscopy, and 17% of all biopsies had diffuse positive c4d staining. There was not any report of ABMR in morphological evaluation while c4d positive staining was seen in some specimens (17%). It may result from masking of ABMR by other morphological changes such as TCMR and no specific histologic changes for ABMR on light microscopy.
conclusionWe would like to emphasize that c4d staining should be done for all of renal allograft biopsies, and pathologists all over the world should consider the probability of ABMR masked by other morphological changes on light microscopic evaluation.
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.