ArticleClinical transplantation2025
Rethinking the Diagnosis and Management of Antibody-Mediated Rejection in Multidisciplinary Transplant Meetings: A Global Survey and Banff Working Group Recommendations.
Article in Clinical transplantation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) requires input from several transplant professionals. Bringing clinical and laboratory experts together may help standardize care. Yet, little is known about current global practices of multidisciplinary meetings for AMR management.
methodsThe Banff Antibody-Mediated Injury Working Group approached professional societies worldwide to distribute a survey on the availability, content, participants, perceived value, and barriers to the implementation of multidisciplinary meetings.
resultsFour hundred two transplant professionals from six continents caring for kidney (90.55%), liver (21.14%), pancreas (20.65%), heart (15.17%), and lung (14.18%) transplant recipients participated in the survey, and 302 (75.12%) reported attending multidisciplinary meetings. Multidisciplinary meetings were more prevalent in academic centers, in high- versus low-to-middle-income regions (81.03% and 65.99%, respectively; p < 0.001), and in mid-to-large size transplant programs compared to smaller programs. Perceived value included continued professional development (97.68%) and trainee education (95.70%). AMR was reported to be discussed at these meetings by 217 respondents with case presentations reviewing patient characteristics, histology, and HLA antibody data. A third of the respondents reviewed non-HLA/pathogenic autoantibodies and/or molecular diagnostics, with the latter being more frequently applied in high- versus low-to-middle-income regions (46.71% and 12.31%, respectively; p < 0.001). AMR case presentations allowed diagnosis revision, actionable management plans and were perceived as improving care. The primary barrier to the implementation of multidisciplinary meetings (63.27%) was the unavailability of transplant professionals (e.g., transplant immunologists).
conclusionFacilitating multidisciplinary meetings through the remote participation of pertinent experts and incentivizing participation through remuneration, protected time, or continued medical education may help standardize AMR diagnosis and harmonize its management.
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.