ArticleMicroorganisms2025
QuantiFERON
Article in Microorganisms, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Microbiology at the 1-Month Surveillance Bronchoalveolar Lavage in the Identification of Complications in the First Year After Lung-Transplantation-A Retrospective Single-Center Experience.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Advancements in Cytomegalovirus Management Among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: Insights From the ESOT CMV Workshop 2023.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung transplantation is a life-saving option for patients with end-stage respiratory diseases, but risk of infections remains critical for ensuring long-term organ function. This study aimed to assess immune recovery in lung transplant recipients by measuring IFN-γ levels using the QuantiFERON Monitor Test (QFM). Results were correlated with episodes of infection and organ rejection to explore the assay's predictive potential.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted on 15 lung transplant recipients at the Lung Transplant Centre of Turin (Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Italy) between December 2019 and January 2023. Patients were divided into a High Infection (HI) group (with >3 infections) and Low Infection (LI) group (with ≤3 infections). QFM assays were performed after 18 months post-transplant.
resultsHI patients had lower QFM levels compared to LI (68.84 ± 21.98 vs. 380.54 ± 104.64 UI/mL,
conclusionlower QFM values were associated with higher infection risk, highlighting the assay's potential for immune monitoring. In this study, a QFM value of 89.5 UI/mL showed good predictive accuracy for infections beyond 18 months. Further studies are needed to refine QFM's role in post-transplant care.
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.