ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2021
Approaching the sensitized lung patient: risk assessment for donor acceptance.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Accessing the Impacts of the Calculated Panel Reactive Antibody Value on a Lung Transplant Waitlist: A Latin American Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Virtual crossmatch for deceased donor kidney transplantation in the United States: A survey of histocompatibility lab directors and transplant surgeons.Human immunology · 2023Article
- Assessment of Anti-Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA)-Antibody-Dependent Humoral Response in Patients before and after Lung Transplantation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Current Desensitization Strategies in Heart Transplantation.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The presence of HLA antibodies is widely recognized as a barrier to solid organ transplantation, and for lung transplant candidates, it has a significant negative impact on both waiting time and waiting list mortality. Although HLA antibodies have been associated with a broad spectrum of allograft damage, precise characterization of these antibodies in allosensitized candidates may enhance their accessibility to transplant. The introduction of Luminex-based single antigen bead (SAB) assays has significantly improved antibody detection sensitivity and specificity, but SAB alone is not sufficient for risk-stratification. Functional characterization of donor-specific antibodies (DSA) is paramount to increase donor accessibility for allosensitized lung candidates. We describe here our approach to evaluate sensitized lung transplant candidates. By employing state-of-the-art technologies to assess histocompatibility and determine physiological properties of circulating HLA antibodies, we can provide our Clinical Team a better risk assessment for lung transplant candidates and facilitate a "road map" to transplant. The cases presented in this paper illustrate the "individualized steps" taken to determine calculated panel reactive antibodies (cPRA), titer and complement-fixing properties of each HLA antibody present in circulation. When a donor is considered, we can better predict the risk associated with potentially crossing HLA antibodies, thereby allowing the Clinical Team to approach allosensitized lung patients with an individualized medicine approach. To facilitate safe access of sensitized lung transplant candidates to potential donors, a synergy between the histocompatibility laboratory and the Clinical Team is essential. Ultimately, donor acceptance is a decision based on several parameters, leading to a risk-stratification unique for each patient.
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.