ReviewCureus2023
Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Immunosuppressive Regimens Post-kidney Transplant: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lupus nephritis and kidney transplantation: A narrative review of patient and graft outcomes.World journal of nephrology · 2026Review
- Kidney transplantation in Lupus Nephritis: a comprehensive review of challenges and strategies.BMC surgery · 2025Review
- Analyzing research trends in the relationship between immunosuppressants and cancer following organ transplantation: a bibliometric study from 2001 to 2023.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Analyzing the impact of human leukocyte antigen mismatch on the incidence of prostate cancer and the advantage of T cell therapy in patients after kidney transplantation based on the United Network for Organ Sharing database.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Exploring Costimulatory Blockade-Based Immunologic Strategies in Transplantation: Are They a Promising Immunomodulatory Approach for Organ and Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation?Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immunosuppressive agents are used post-organ transplant to prevent acute rejection and graft losses. Tacrolimus, the most widely used immunosuppressive agent for kidney transplant recipients, has unfavorable side effects such as new-onset diabetes after transplant, nephrotoxicity, and electrolyte imbalances. Other drug groups such as the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, belatacept, and bleselumab have been used to either substitute calcineurin inhibitors or reduce their exposure. This systematic analysis reviews evidence from randomized controlled trials to compare the safety and efficacy of various immunosuppressive regimens for kidney transplant recipients. An in-depth methodical search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Mendeley. PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed for this study. Randomized controlled trials comparing varying regimens were included in this study. While there was no difference in safety and efficacy between once-daily and twice-daily tacrolimus, mTOR inhibitors showed to be a viable option for a reduced tacrolimus exposure regimen. Calcineurin inhibitor avoidance and early steroid withdrawal regimens both showed increased rates of rejection. Based on these findings, a regimen containing once-daily tacrolimus and an mTOR inhibitor with or without corticosteroid is a viable immunosuppressive regimen post-kidney transplant. Further trials, especially ones with longer follow-up periods, are needed to explore these regimens' long-term safety and efficacy.
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.