ArticleJornal brasileiro de nefrologia
Quantitative detection of BK virus in kidney transplant recipients: a prospective validation study.
Article in Jornal brasileiro de nefrologia. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Serum and urine nucleic acid screening tests for BK polyomavirus-associated nephropathy in kidney and kidney-pancreas transplant recipients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Towards a Rapid-Turnaround Low-Depth Unbiased Metagenomics Sequencing Workflow on the Illumina Platforms.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Donor Derived Cell Free DNA in Kidney Transplantation: The Circa 2020-2021 Update.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2022Review
- Donor-derived Cell-free DNA and the Prediction of BK Virus-associated Nephropathy.Transplantation direct · 2020Article
- Polyomavirus infection: can early diagnosis prevent development of associated allograft nephropathy?Jornal brasileiro de nefrologiaArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBK virus (BKV) infection in renal transplant patients may cause kidney allograft dysfunction and graft loss. Accurate determination of BKV viral load is critical to prevent BKV-associated nephropathy (BKVAN) but the cut-off that best predicts BKVAN remains controversial.
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of a commercial and an in-house qPCR test for quantitative detection of BK virus in kidney transplant recipients.
methodsThis was a prospective study with kidney transplant recipients from two large university hospitals in Brazil. Patients were screened for BKV infection every 3 months in the first year post-transplant with a commercial and an in-house real time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) test. BKVAN was confirmed based on histopathology. The area under the curve for plasma qPCR was determined from receiver operating characteristic analysis.
resultsA total of 200 patients were enrolled. Fifty-eight percent were male, 19.5% had diabetes mellitus, and 82% had the kidney transplanted from a deceased donor. BKV viremia was detected in 32.5% and BKVAN was diagnosed in 8 patients (4%). BKVAN was associated with viremia of 4.1 log copies/mL, using a commercial kit. The cut-off for the in-house assay was 6.1 log copies/mL. The linearity between the commercial kit and the in-house assay was R2=0.83.
conclusionOur study shows that marked variability occurs in BKV viral load when different qPCR methodologies are used. The in-house qPCR assay proved clinically useful, a cheaper option in comparison to commercial qPCR kits. There is an urgent need to make BKV standards available to the international community.
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.