ArticleKidney3602020
Donor-Derived Cell Free DNA: Is It All the Same?
Article in Kidney360, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility of donor-derived cell-free DNA testing after lung transplantation in the precision medicine era.The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation · 2026Review
- Article
- Advances in donor-derived cell-free DNA monitoring for solid organ transplantation.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Donor-derived cell-free DNA and its utility in kidney transplantation: A myth or a reality.World journal of nephrology · 2025Review
- Utility and limitations of the use of donor-derived cell-free DNA in kidney transplantation.World journal of transplantation · 2025Review
- Donor-derived cell-free DNA in solid organ transplantation: analytical considerations, diagnostic performance, and clinical interpretation.Clinical transplantation and research · 2025Review
- Evaluating the Diagnostic Utility of dd-cfDNA in Renal Allograft Surveillance: A Single-Center Perspective.Genes · 2025Article
- Genomic and Biomarker Innovations in Predicting Kidney Transplant Rejection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Advances and challenges in the application of donor-derived cell-free DNA for diagnosis and treatment in liver transplantation: a narrative review.BMC surgery · 2025Review
- Biomarkers of Rejection in Kidney Transplantation.American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation · 2025Review
- Clinical use of donor-derived cell-free DNA in kidney transplantation.World journal of transplantation · 2024Review
- Analysis of the primary factors influencing donor derived cell-free DNA testing in kidney transplantation.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Evaluation of a Decentralized Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA Assay for Kidney Allograft Rejection Monitoring.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2024Article
- Comparison of two donor-derived cell-free DNA tests and a blood gene-expression profile test in heart transplantation.Clinical transplantation · 2023Observational
- The Current State of Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA Use in Allograft Monitoring in Kidney Transplantation.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Immune checkpoint inhibitors for solid organ transplant recipients: clinical updates.Korean journal of transplantation · 2022Review
- Early Experience Using Donor-derived Cell-free DNA for Surveillance of Rejection Following Simultaneous Pancreas and Kidney Transplantation.Transplantation direct · 2022Article
- Emerging role of cell-free DNA in kidney transplantation.World journal of experimental medicine · 2021Review
- Cell-free DNA in the surveillance of heart transplant rejection.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2021Review
- Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA (ddcf-DNA) and Acute Antibody-Mediated Rejection in Kidney Transplantation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical utility of donor-derived, cellfree DNA (dd-cfDNA) in transplantation has been extensively reviewed, supporting its use as a surveillance tool for the early and accurate detection of allograft injury. Yet studies comparing different assay methods have been lacking. Methods: Paired sampling of commercially available dd-cfDNA (AlloSure and Prospera) was compared and examined against histology and manufacturer guidance. A total of 76 patients were prospectively assessed, with 11 biopsy sample-proven rejections (antibody-mediated rejection, Results: Prospera demonstrated larger measurements of dd-cfDNA in comparison with AlloSure, but this was NS ( Conclusions: Although dd-cfDNAs are similar, they are not the same. Extensive evidence for dd-cfDNA interpretation remains the key to building clinical utility when considering clinical implementation, and remaining consistent to a single platform is important when creating data comparisons.
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.