Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32164120›Full record

ReviewKidney research and clinical practice2020

Diagnosis of renal transplant rejection: Banff classification and beyond.

Hyeon Joo Jeong

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Kidney research and clinical practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Findings and significance of early follow-up biopsies after treatment of acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hyeon Joo JeongDepartment of Pathology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9695-1227
Yonsei University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnosis of renal transplant rejection is dependent on interpretation of renal allograft biopsies. The Banff Classification of Allograft Pathology, which was developed as a standardized working classification system in 1991, has contributed to the standardization of definitions for histologic injuries resulting from renal allograft rejections and provided a universal grading system for assessing these injuries. It has also helped to provide insight into the underlying pathogenic mechanisms that contribute to transplant rejection. In addition to histological and immunologic parameters, molecular tools are now being used to facilitate the diagnosis of rejection. In this review, I will discuss morphologic features of renal transplant rejections as well as major revisions and pitfalls of the Banff classification system, and provide future perspectives.

Indexed as

Banff classificationGene transcriptsMorphologyRejectionRenal transplantation

Identifiers

PMID32164120
PMCPMC7105630
OpenAlexW3011635649

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.