Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37745947›Full record

ArticleTransplantation direct2023

Reproducibility of Rejection Grading in Uterus Transplantation: A Multicenter Study.

Verena Broecker, Mats Brännström, Hans Bösmüller, Eva Sticová, Jana Malušková, Andres Chiesa-Vottero, Johan Mölne

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transplantation direct, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01844362 (Prospective Case Series of Human Uterus Transplantation From Live Donor), which is not on this 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.

NCT01844362 nacompletednot on this map

Prospective Case Series of Human Uterus Transplantation From Live Donor

TypeinterventionalSponsorSahlgrenska University HospitalRan2012 to 2021Enrolled9ConditionsPrimary Uterine InfertilityArmsuterine transplantation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Risks of uterus transplantation: a scoping review.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2026
    Article
  2. Past, Present, and Future: A Review of Uterus Transplant.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025
    Review
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

7 authors.

Verena BroeckerDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2980-4558
Mats BrännströmDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Hans BösmüllerInstitute of Pathology and Neuropathology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Eva SticováClinical and Transplant Pathology Department, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine (IKEM), Prague, Czech Republic.
Jana MaluškováClinical and Transplant Pathology Department, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine (IKEM), Prague, Czech Republic.
Andres Chiesa-VotteroDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Johan MölneDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Diagnosis of rejection after uterus transplantation is based on histopathological examination of ectocervical biopsies. Inflammation at the stromal-epithelial interface is the backbone of the histopathological classification proposed by our group in 2017. However, the reproducibility of this grading scheme has not been tested, and it is unclear whether it covers the full morphological spectrum of rejection. Methods: We present a multicenter study in which 5 pathologists from 4 uterus transplantation centers performed 2 rounds of grading on 145 and 48 cervical biopsies, respectively. Three of the centers provided biopsies. Additionally, the presence of perivascular stromal inflammation was recorded. During discussions after the first round, further histological lesions (venous endothelial inflammation and apoptosis) were identified for closer evaluation and added to the panel of lesions to score in the second round. All participants completed a questionnaire to explore current practices in handling and reporting uterus transplant biopsies. Results: Cervical biopsies were commonly performed in all centers to monitor rejection. Intraobserver reproducibility of rejection grading (performed by 1 rater) was excellent, whereas interobserver reproducibility was moderate and did not improve in the second round. Reproducibility of perivascular stromal inflammation was moderate but unsatisfactory for venous endothelial inflammation and apoptosis. All lesions were more frequent in, but not restricted to, biopsies with rejection patterns. Conclusions: Grading of rejection in cervical biopsies is reproducible and applicable to biopsies from different centers. Diagnosis of rejection may be improved by adding further histological lesions to the grading system; however, lesions require rigorous consensus definition.

Identifiers

PMID37745947
PMCPMC10513355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.