ReviewCurrent opinion in organ transplantation2017
Application, technical issues, and interpretation of C1q for graft outcome.
Review in Current opinion in organ transplantation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Complement-activating donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies and solid organ transplant survival: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Complement Binding Anti-HLA Antibodies and the Survival of Kidney Transplantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Continuation of immunosuppression vs. immunosuppression weaning in potential repeat kidney transplant candidates: a care management perspective.Frontiers in nephrology · 2023Review
- Treatment of allosensitized patients receiving allogeneic transplantation.Blood advances · 2021Article
- Tailoring desensitization in intestinal transplants: C1q guided protocol for highly sensitized recipients.Intestinal Failure (New York, N.Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewSignificant interest and controversy surround the use of C1q for determining risk of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) and graft loss. Alternate models for predicting outcomes have been proposed. This review focuses on the correlation of currently utilized assays for outcome, together with the technical and theoretical limitations, to distill current thinking. RECENT
findingsResults demonstrate that C1q status is significantly correlated with AMR and graft loss. There is general consensus that C1q is more clinically relevant for graft outcome than neat IgG MFI. IgG titers, subclass, and other complement assays have now been studied to determine if they are more relevant. Only IgG3 and possibly C3d fixation have shown added value to C1q for outcome correlation. Direct parallel titer comparisons of C1q and IgG are lacking and the correlation is unknown. SUMMARY: Overall, results confirm the correlation with C1q+ donor-specific antibody (DSA) for AMR and graft loss. The association is stronger posttransplant. C1q+ de novo antibody appears to be especially detrimental portending graft loss in about 1-2.5 years post detection. Recommendations to biopsy and treat at time of de novo C1q+ antibody detection have been suggested by several groups.
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.