Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39290350›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nephrology2024

Nikka Khorsandi, Hwarang Stephen Han, Raja Rajalingam, Jun Shoji, Anatoly Urisman

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nephrology, 2024. 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. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Nikka KhorsandiDepartment of Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Hwarang Stephen HanDepartment of Medicine, Nephrology Division, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Raja RajalingamImmunogenetics and Transplantation Laboratory, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Jun ShojiDepartment of Medicine, Nephrology Division, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Anatoly UrismanDepartment of Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Membranous nephropathy (MN) can develop post-kidney transplant and is classified as a recurrent disease in patients with a history of MN in the native kidneys or as Methods: A search of the pathology database from our medical center identified 11 cases of recurrent and 15 cases of Results: Rates of concurrent AMR were high in both groups (36% and 40%, respectively) but not statistically different from each other. PLA2R immunofluorescence (IF) positivity was seen in 64% of recurrent MN cases compared to 33% of Conclusion: The findings do not provide support for a specific association between AMR and

Indexed as

antibody mediated allograft rejectionde novo membranous nephropathymembranous nephropathy (MN)recurrent membranous nephropathytransplant kidneytransplant kidney pathology

Identifiers

PMID39290350
PMCPMC11405159

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.