ReviewJHLT open2026
Pulmonary indications for heart-lung transplantation: A modified Delphi survey among the French transplantation community.
Review 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart-lung transplantation (HLTx) is a life-saving intervention for patients with advanced cardiopulmonary disease. Its use has declined significantly in recent decades, and the pulmonary indications for HLTx remain unclear. This study aimed to explore current expert opinions and areas of agreement and disagreement on pulmonary indications for HLTx using a 2-round modified Delphi survey sent to 94 experts at 6 French HLTx centers, including pulmonologists, cardiologists, thoracic surgeons, cardiac surgeons, and anesthesiologists-intensivists. Items relevant to 9 key domains were selected by a working group based on literature reviews. Both surveys had 57 items. Consensus regarding each domain was evaluated by determining the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), with an ICC >0.8 indicating strong consensus. In round 1, 40/94 experts responded. The items were scored from 1 to 9: 11 scored >7, 7 scored <3, and 39 had intermediate scores and were reformulated for the second round. The wide interquartile ranges indicated significant variability in responses, and for no domain was the ICC above 0.8. In round 2, which was offered to all experts, the response rate dropped to 25, precluding further statistical analysis. Key areas of disagreement included HLTx indications in severe PAH, right ventricular dysfunction, and congenital heart disease. These findings highlight the absence of a shared consensus and reflect the intrinsic complexity, rarity of the procedure, and variability in institutional expertise. Rather than establishing prescriptive criteria, this expert review underscores the need for individualized, multidisciplinary, and center-specific decision-making, while acknowledging ethical considerations related to donor scarcity. Future efforts should focus on multicenter data collection and predictive models integrating clinical variables and expert judgment to better identify patients who may benefit from HLTx.
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.