ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2025
A Systematic Literature Review to Determine Gaps in Diagnosing Suspected Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of pre-transplant veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on post-lung transplant infections.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Improved diagnostic testing (DT) of infections may optimize outcomes for solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR), but a comprehensive analysis is lacking. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review across multiple databases, including EMBASE and MEDLINE(R), of studies published between 1 January 2012-11 June 2022, to examine the evidence behind DT in SOTR. Eligibility criteria included the use of conventional diagnostic methods (culture, biomarkers, directed-polymerase chain reaction [PCR]) or advanced molecular diagnostics (broad-range PCR, metagenomics) to diagnose infections in hospitalized SOTR. Bias was assessed using tools such as the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA 2020. Results: Of 2362 studies, 72 were eligible and evaluated heterogeneous SOT populations, infections, biospecimens, DT, and outcomes. All studies exhibited bias, mainly in reporting quality. Median study sample size was 102 (range, 11-1307). Culture was the most common DT studied (N = 45 studies, 62.5%), with positive results in a median of 27.7% (range, 0%-88.3%). Biomarkers, PCR, and metagenomics were evaluated in 7, 19, and 3 studies, respectively; only 6 reported sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values. Directed-PCR performed well for targeted pathogens, but only 1 study evaluated broad-range PCR. Metagenomics approaches detected numerous organisms but required clinical adjudication, with too few studies (N = 3) to draw conclusions. Turnaround time was shorter for PCR/metagenomics than conventional diagnostic methods (N = 4 studies, 5.6%). Only 6 studies reported the impact of DT on outcomes like antimicrobial use and length of stay. Conclusions: We identified considerable evidence gaps in infection-related DT among SOT, particularly molecular DT, highlighting the need for further research.
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.