ArticleJHLT open2024
Tale of two assays: Comparison of modern donor-derived cell-free DNA technologies.
Article in JHLT open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in donor-derived cell-free DNA monitoring for solid organ transplantation.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Donor-derived cell-free DNA in solid organ transplantation: analytical considerations, diagnostic performance, and clinical interpretation.Clinical transplantation and research · 2025Review
- Diagnosis of rejection following heart transplantation: diving into the future.Frontiers in transplantation · 2025Review
- %dd-cfDNA: The New Frontier for Heart/Lung Transplant Surveillance?Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025Review
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
Little is known about the comparative differences between the Allosure (CareDx) and Prospera (Natera) donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) assays following heart transplantation. We retrospectively analyzed 248 consecutive samples that had both dd-cfDNA assays simultaneously performed. Twenty-six biopsy specimens were available within 7 days from dd-cfDNA assays. Both dd-cfDNA assays were correctly suggestive of rejection when biopsy was available. However, discordant classifications were present in 23/248 samples when utilizing respective recommended cutoff values for each assay (0.12% for Allosure and 0.15% for Prospera). Discordance was due to increased classification as abnormal results with Allosure (McNemar's
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.