Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39999346›Full record

ReviewXenotransplantation

Xenotransplantation Literature Update July-December 2024.

Kasra Shirini, Joseph M Ladowski, Raphael P H Meier

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Xenotransplantation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kasra ShiriniDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Joseph M LadowskiDepartment of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Raphael P H MeierDepartment of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review highlights groundbreaking progress from July to December 2024, including developments in gene-edited pigs, cellular therapies, organ preservation, and transplantation techniques. Recent advancements, particularly in gene-editing technologies and immunosuppressive protocols, have brought the field closer to clinical application. While significant ethical, immunological, and societal challenges remain, this progress underscores the immense potential of xenotransplantation to revolutionize transplantation medicine.

Indexed as

HeterograftsTransplantation, HeterologousAnimalsHumansSwineclinical trialsfederal drug administrationgenetic modificationsheart xenotransplantationimmunosuppressionkidney xenotransplantationpig‐to‐humanpublic perception

Identifiers

PMID39999346
PMCPMC11856842

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.