The initiative for consensus and standards in pig-to-human xenotransplantation in China.

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. Reframing Technology and Ethics in Corneal Xenotransplantation: A Scoping Review of Standards and Safety in Ophthalmology.Health care science · 2026
   Review
2. Single-Cell Transcriptome and Microbiome Profiling Uncover Ileal Immune Impairment in Intrauterine Growth-Retarded Piglets.Current pharmaceutical design · 2026
   Article
3. The First Clinical Renal Xenotransplantation Study (EXPAND): Evaluating Safety, Function, and Zoonotic Risks.Health care science · 2025
   Article
4. Lung Xenotransplantation Advances in the Context of Clinical Pandora's Box-Positioned Amid Innovations in Heart, Kidney, and Liver Xenografts.Health care science · 2025
   Article

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

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.