ReviewERJ open research2024
Efficacy of surveillance bronchoscopy
Review in ERJ open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Graft rejection across solid organ transplants: mechanisms, monitoring, and immunosuppressive therapeutics.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Surveillance Donor-derived Cell-free DNA Allows for the Safe Reduction in Protocol Transbronchial Biopsies After Lung Transplantation.Transplantation direct · 2026Article
- Post-lung transplant surveillance in 2026: current practice, variability, and the need for standardization.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026Review
- Using a combination of biomarkers to monitor allograft dysfunction in lung transplant recipients.Frontiers in transplantation · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute allograft rejection after lung transplantation significantly increases the risk of developing bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome, a form of chronic lung allograft dysfunction and the leading cause of mortality beyond the initial post-transplantation year. There are two diagnostic approaches available for monitoring lung transplant recipients: clinically indicated bronchoscopy (CIB) and surveillance bronchoscopy (SB). The efficacy of both methods and their relative superiority in detecting acute rejection have not been conclusively determined. Methods: We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases from inception until 10 October 2023 for prospective studies comparing the efficacy of SB and CIB. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was performed for three observational cohort studies, totalling 122 patients with 527 bronchoscopies. Results: Overall, neither SB nor CIB had a higher likelihood of detecting acute lung transplant rejection of any grade. Subsequent subgroup analyses showed no advantage for SB in detecting minimal rejection (grade A1), but an inverse association was observed for higher-grade rejection. Conclusion: In conclusion, our study found no significant difference in detecting acute lung transplant rejection between SB and CIB. However, due to the limited number of studies and small sample sizes, larger prospective studies are urgently needed to definitely determine whether there truly exists no difference between SB and CIB in detecting acute rejection, particularly A1 minimal rejection.
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.