Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35601346›Full record

ReviewCurrent transplantation reports2022

Taking a Deep Breath: an Examination of Current Controversies in Surgical Procedures in Lung Transplantation.

Gabriel Hirdman, Anna Niroomand, Franziska Olm, Sandra Lindstedt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current transplantation reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Time as a Therapeutic Ally: The Promise of Long-Term Solid Organ and Tissue Perfusion.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026
    Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Gabriel Hirdman *Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Transplantation, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Anna Niroomand *Wallenberg Center for Molecular Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Franziska OlmDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Transplantation, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Sandra LindstedtDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Transplantation, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4484-6473

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose of Review: This article reviews controversial questions within the field of lung transplantation, with a focus on data generated within the last 3 years. We aim to summarize differing opinions on a selection of topics, including bridge-to-transplantation, intraoperative machine circulatory support, bronchial anastomosis, size mismatch, delayed chest closure, and ex vivo lung perfusion. Recent Findings: With the growing rate of lung transplantations worldwide and increasing numbers of patients placed on waiting lists, the importance of determining best practices has only increased in recent years. Factors which promote successful outcomes have been identified across all the topics, with certain approaches promoted, such as ambulation in bridge-to-transplant and widespread intraoperative ECMO as machine support. Summary: While great strides have been made in the operative procedures involved in lung transplantation, there are still key questions to be answered. The consensus which can be reached will be instrumental in further improving outcomes in recipients.

Indexed as

Bronchial anastomosisDelayed chest closureExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP)Lung transplantationMachine circulatory support (MCS)Size mismatch

Identifiers

PMID35601346
PMCPMC9108015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.