Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42211986›Full record

ReviewTransplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation2026

Post-lung transplant surveillance in 2026: current practice, variability, and the need for standardization.

Berta Saez-Gimenez, Jesper M Magnusson, Andrea Zajacova

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Berta Saez-GimenezRespiratory Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.
Jesper M MagnussonDepartment of Pulmonology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Andrea ZajacovaLaboratory of Respiratory Diseases and Thoracic Surgery (BREATHE), Department CHROMETA, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Post-lung transplant surveillance remains highly heterogeneous, with no universally accepted standard guiding organisation of care or the use of physiological testing, imaging, bronchoscopy, laboratory monitoring, and emerging biomarkers. This narrative review synthesises current surveillance practices across these domains and addresses key limitations, sources of inter-centre variability, and evidence gaps that hinder timely detection of allograft dysfunction. We summarize established and evolving approaches to organisation of care, lung function monitoring, radiological assessment, invasive diagnostics, and laboratory parameters, along with novel biomarkers, highlighting where evidence supports routine use and where tools remain investigational. Fragmentation of follow-up strategies, inconsistent interpretation of longitudinal data, and limited integration of novel diagnostics contribute to delayed recognition of graft injury and variable outcomes. Advancing post-transplant care will require consensus-driven definition of minimum surveillance standards, trajectory-based interpretation frameworks, and rational incorporation of validated biomarkers and digital technologies into harmonised follow-up pathways.

Indexed as

Lung TransplantationBiomarkersBronchoscopyGraft SurvivalHumansRespiratory Function TestsBiomarkersfollow-upgraft survivallung transplantationoutcomesurveillance

Identifiers

PMID42211986
PMCPMC13212261

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.