Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29974325›Full record

ReviewFrontiers of medicine2019

HLA and lung transplantation.

Liya Ju, Caroline Suberbielle, Xiaofan Li, Nuala Mooney, Dominique Charron

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers of medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Validation of a Simple, Rapid, and Cost-Effective Method for Acute Rejection Monitoring in Lung Transplant Recipients.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Liya JuHLA et Medecine, "Jean Dausset" Laboratory Network, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France. liya.ju@aphp.fr.
Caroline SuberbielleLaboratoire Histocompatibilité, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France.
Xiaofan LiINSERM U1160, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France.
Nuala MooneyINSERM U1160, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France.
Dominique CharronHLA et Medecine, "Jean Dausset" Laboratory Network, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung transplantation is increasingly practiced for patients with end-stage lung disease. The successful outcome of solid organ transplantation today is severely impeded by the production of alloantibodies, mainly directed against the protein products of the HLA complex of the organ donor. While the association between antibody mediated rejection and allograft damage has been well established in renal and heart transplantation, it has not yet been well characterized in lung transplantation. This review addresses the question of HLA matching in lung transplantation and current knowledge of the allogenicity of different HLA class I and II antigens. The role of the antibody mediated immune response is discussed as well as the importance of pre-transplant or de novo post-transplant circulating antibodies. Finally, potential mechanisms, which may act individually or in combination, of antibody mediated damage to solid organ transplants are considered.

Indexed as

Graft RejectionHistocompatibility TestingHLA AntigensHumansIsoantibodiesLung TransplantationTissue DonorsHLA AntigensIsoantibodiesalloantibodyantibody mediated rejectionhuman leukocyte antigen class I and IIlung transplantationmismatchobliterans bronchiolitis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.