ArticleJHLT open2026
Pathologists' experience and routine practice in high-volume lung transplant centers: An international survey.
Article in JHLT open, 2026. 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
36 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung allograft pathology encompasses a wide spectrum of disorders, with new entities and emerging diagnostic technologies. The main goal of this study was to document pathologists' current global practices and highlight areas of consensus and divergence worldwide. A 24-item survey was distributed to transplant centers and responses were received from 35 specialists (51% European, 49% non-European). Most centers used both surveillance and symptom-driven assessments (77%), mainly with transbronchial biopsies (86%) and bronchoalveolar lavage (83%). Non-European centers were more likely to adopt digital pathology (OR 3.03), to use donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) (OR 2.94), and supported large airway sampling (OR 2.27). Larger centers used dd-cfDNA (OR 2.75) more frequently and consider large airway sampling (OR 2.18). Responders largely supported standardized reporting (86%), reintroducing grade AX (94%), and independent bronchial lesion scoring (82%). Most endorsed an "indeterminate" category for acute and chronic rejection. These findings reflect evolving practices in the field and will inform the ongoing revision of the Lung Allograft Pathology Working Classification.
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.