ArticleBreathe (Sheffield, England)2018
Controversies and emerging topics in lung transplantation.
Article in Breathe (Sheffield, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reversal of lung consolidation with mechanical insufflation-exsufflation in a brain-dead lung donor.JHLT open · 2026Article
- What's to Lose When We Choose: Decision-making in Lung Transplantation.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2023Article
- Lung transplantation: the patient view from either side of the operating table.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2021Article
- Lung Transplant Improves Survival and Quality of Life Regardless of Telomere Dysfunction.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Enhanced Mitochondrial DNA Repair Resuscitates Transplantable Lungs Donated After Circulatory Death.The Journal of surgical research · 2020Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung transplantation provides a realistic hope of improved survival and enhanced quality of life. However, outcomes can be disappointing, meaning many decisions are highly controversial. Practice is largely based on expert opinion and there is a dearth of high-level evidence. Not surprisingly, this leads to centre-specific practices that may vary considerably in controversial areas. The aim of this review, therefore, is to explore some of those domains and present the available evidence. As the science of lung transplantation approaches its fifth decade, we are only now reaching a critical mass of clinicians and scientific researchers to enable adequately powered studies to assist in informing our approach to some of these controversies. KEY POINTS: Lung transplantation remains an art, combining experience with evidence.Clinicians need evidence to guide them on a myriad of questions, from candidate selection and listing, to organ donor acceptance, immunosuppression and chronic allograft dysfunction.Chronic lung allograft dysfunction pathogenesis deserves further detailed study. EDUCATIONAL
aimsTo illustrate the spectrum of controversial areas in lung transplantation including whom to list, which organs can be used and for whom, immune suppression and infection prophylaxis, and causes and phenotypes of chronic lung allograft dysfunction.To inspire clinicians to always ask questions and help collect the evidence we need to inform decision making.
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.