ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Application and validation of a newly developed lung donor (LUNDON) acceptability score for lung transplantation: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of a Computed Tomography-Based Convolutional Neural Network Model for Assisting Donor Lung Acquisition in Lung Transplantation.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Lung transplantation in 2025: a narrative review of progress, challenges, and the road ahead.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Organ shortage remains a considerable challenge in the field of lung transplantation. There is an urgent need now for a new standard that can include more donor lungs and expand the donor pool to benefit more patients. To increase lung utilization rates and facilitate the standardization of the lung donor evaluation process, Heiden Methods: This study was conducted in one of the largest lung transplant centers in China. Our study retrospectively analyzed a cohort of patients who underwent lung transplantation in Wuxi People's Hospital, Jiangsu Province, China, between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2022, and applied the same exclusion criteria as those described in Heiden Results: A total of 553 donor lungs were used for transplantation. According to the LUNDON score, the donors' integer-based score ranged from 9 to 30 points, and the predicted probability of donor lung acceptance was about 6.0% to 95.3%. Utilization of low-LUNDON-score donors increased progressively over the study period. The LUNDON score demonstrated concordance with the lung acceptance rate as designated by the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) standard score. There was a statistically significant difference in the survival rate between donors and recipients with high or low LUNDON scores (P=0.03). The survival rate at 1 year after transplantation was 66.1% for the high-score group and 55.7% for the low-score group. The LUNDON score, as a newly developed practical model, can promote a further understanding of donor lung assessment and has the potential to effectively expand the donor pool. Conclusions: This study confirmed the practicability of the newly developed lung donor (LUNDON) scoring model. The LUNDON score was found to be a valuable tool and may revolutionize and optimize the allocation of scarce organ resources. It is possible that the novel model can be applied to various populations, expand the pool of potential available lungs, and enhance the efficiency and success of lung transplantation.
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.