ArticleKidney medicine2026
Recurrent, Nonrecurrent, and De Novo Membranous Nephropathy After Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Kidney medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale & Objective: Recurrent and de novo membranous nephropathy (MN) are significant complications after kidney transplantation, yet prevalence, risk determinants, and treatment outcomes have not been comprehensively quantified. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting & Participants: Kidney transplant recipients with native-kidney MN (recurrent or nonrecurrent) and recipients with de novo MN. Selection Criteria for Studies: PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched through June 30, 2025; studies comparing risk factors and outcomes among these groups were eligible for meta-analyses. Data Extraction: Study characteristics, demographics, transplant features, outcomes including remission and allograft loss. Analytic Approach: Random-effects meta-analyses calculated weighted mean differences or pooled ORs for comparisons between recurrent versus nonrecurrent or de novo MN, allograft outcomes, and response to rituximab. Results: The included studies comprised a total of 2,259 kidney transplant recipients with recurrent (28%), nonrecurrent (61%), or de novo MN (11%). Recurrence prevalence was 39% (95% CI, 28%-50%) in studies with protocol biopsies versus 25% (95% CI, 20%-29%) without protocol biopsies ( Limitations: Substantial heterogeneity and small-study effects in some variables; magnitudes should be interpreted cautiously. Conclusions: MN recurs in approximately one-third of recipients. Protocol biopsy should be utilized in recipients with history of native MN. Rituximab emerges as the preferred first-line treatment for recurrent MN.
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.