Observational studyClinical transplantation2023
Comparison of two donor-derived cell-free DNA tests and a blood gene-expression profile test in heart transplantation.
Observational study in Clinical transplantation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Circulating donor-derived cell-free DNA as a marker for rejection after lung transplantation.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Noninvasive Biomarkers for Cardiac Allograft Rejection Monitoring: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Heart Transplant: A Never-Ending Story.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Transforming heart transplantation care with multi-omics insights.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Diagnosis of rejection following heart transplantation: diving into the future.Frontiers in transplantation · 2025Review
- Article
- Application of graft-derived cell-free DNA for solid organ transplantation.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Free-Circulating Nucleic Acids as Biomarkers in Patients After Solid Organ Transplantation.Annals of transplantation · 2023Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDonor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) testing is an emerging screening modality for noninvasive detection of acute rejection (AR). This study compared the testing accuracy for AR of two commercially available dd-cfDNA and gene-expression profiling (GEP) testing in heart transplant (HTx) recipients.
methodsThis is a retrospective, observational study of HTx only patients who underwent standard and expanded single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) dd-cfDNA between October 2020 to January 2022. Comparison with GEP was also performed. Assays were compared for correlation, accurate classification, and prediction for AR.
resultsA total of 428 samples from 112 unique HTx patients were used for the study. A positive standard SNP correlated with the expanded SNP assay (p < .001). Both standard and expanded SNP tests showed low sensitivity (39%, p = 1.0) but high specificity (82% and 84%, p = 1.0) for AR. GEP did not improve sensitivity and showed worse specificity (p < .001) compared to standard dd-cfDNA.
conclusionWe found no significant difference between standard and expanded SNP assays in detecting AR. We show improved specificity without change in sensitivity using dd-cfDNA in place of GEP testing. Prospective controlled studies to address how to best implement dd-cfDNA testing into clinical practice are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.