Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30519294›Full record

ArticleBreathe (Sheffield, England)2018

Controversies and emerging topics in lung transplantation.

David Abelson, Allan R Glanville

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2018
    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

2 authors.

David AbelsonThe Lung Transplant Unit, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Allan R GlanvilleThe Lung Transplant Unit, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID30519294
PMCPMC6269170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.