ReviewJournal of transplantation2026
Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Detecting Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA in Renal Transplant Rejection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of transplantation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Detecting Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA in Renal Transplant Rejection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of transplantation · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Circulating donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) has emerged as a noninvasive biomarker for detecting allograft rejection and assessing renal status. While promising, its diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the DTA of dd-cfDNA in identifying rejection following renal transplantation. Method: A systematic review and meta-analysis of DTA studies were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science) were searched comprehensively for studies reporting the sensitivity and specificity of dd-cfDNA in detecting renal allograft rejection. Data were analysed using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4.1 and MetaDTA 2.0. Results: Thirteen studies were included, comprising 2214 samples across various rejection types, including antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) and T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR). Meta-analysis revealed pooled sensitivities and specificities for detecting unspecified rejection of 61.1% (95% CI: 48.2%-74.8%) and 83.0% (95% CI: 76.3%-88.5%), respectively. For ABMR, pooled sensitivity increased to 75.6% (95% CI: 61.7%-86.4%) with a specificity of 82.1% (95% CI: 71.4%-88.8%). Meta-regression analysis using a dd-cfDNA threshold of 1% demonstrated comparable sensitivity and specificity for the detection of biopsy-proven rejection and ABMR, yielding estimates consistent with the overall pooled results. Insufficient data were available to allow for analytical comparison in TCMR. The area under the curve (AUC) was highest in the ABMR group. Conclusion: dd-cfDNA shows potential as a diagnostic biomarker, particularly for ABMR in renal transplantation. Further studies integrating dd-cfDNA with biochemical and histological markers are recommended to enhance diagnostic precision.
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.