ArticleClinical kidney journal2017
Looking for the needle in the kidney transplantation haystack.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies to Improve Patient Engagement in Young Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Review.Annals of transplantation · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis of acute rejection still relies on renal allograft biopsy. In fact, histological features including C4d staining can be useful to differentiate cellular and antibody-mediated acute rejection. However, the pathogenic mechanism to define the type of rejection is usually assessed by anti-HLA donor specific antibodies (DSA) monitoring. Suspicion of acute rejection is usually based on renal function deterioration. This method has low sensitivity. Moreover, creatinine increase follows graft injury and therefore the diagnosis is performed when there is an ongoing acute rejection. One strategy to overcome the limitation of serum creatinine as predictor of acute rejection is to perform surveillance protocol biopsies. However, the low incidence of subclinical acute rejection among patients treated with tacrolimus-based immunosuppression makes this procedure questionable in terms of cost-effectiveness. In this scenario new biomarkers predicting acute rejection are urgently needed. Ideally, such biomarkers should anticipate acute rejection, thus allowing preventive actions such as maintenance immunosupression intensification and/or modification. Alternatively, these new biomarkers should at least improve the predictive value of serum creatinine monitoring. Although many of the new biomarkers are promising, none have been translated to the clinic to date because of a lack of validation studies and the existence of major methodological concerns.
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.