ArticleTransplantation direct2024
Measurement Matters: A Metrological Approach to Renal Preimplantation Biopsy Evaluation to Address Uncertainty in Organ Selection.
Article in Transplantation direct, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Time-Zero Kidney Biopsy and Deceased-Donor Transplant Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prognostic Value, Prediction, and Clinical Utility.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Preimplantation Histopathologic Assessment of Deceased Donor Kidneys: Recommendations from the Banff Time-Zero Biopsy Working Group.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2025Guideline
- Quantifying measurement uncertainty in renal transplant biopsy assessment.Frontiers in nephrology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Preimplantation biopsy combines measurements of injury into a composite index to inform organ acceptance. The uncertainty in these measurements remains poorly characterized, raising concerns variability may contribute to inappropriate clinical decisions. Methods: We adopted a metrological approach to evaluate biopsy score reliability. Variability was assessed by performing repeat biopsies (n = 293) on discarded allografts (n = 16) using 3 methods (core, punch, and wedge). Uncertainty was quantified using a bootstrapping analysis. Observer effects were controlled by semi-blinded scoring, and the findings were validated by comparison with standard glass evaluation. Results: The surgical method strongly determined the size (core biopsy area 9.04 mm Conclusions: Our investigation highlights the risks of relying on single-slide assessment to quantify organ injury. Biopsy evaluation is subject to uncertainty, meaning each slide is better conceptualized as providing an estimate of the kidney's condition rather than a definitive result. Pooling multiple assessments could improve the reliability of biopsy analysis, enhancing confidence. Where histological quantification is necessary, clinicians should seek to develop new protocols using more tissue and consider automated methods to assist pathologists in delivering analysis within clinical time frames.
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.