The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical outcomes after ABO-incompatible renal transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
BACKGROUND ABO-incompatible renal transplantation (ABOi-rTx) is increasingly used to overcome organ shortage. Evidence about its non-inferiority in comparison with ABO-compatible renal transplantation (ABOc-rTx) needs to be analysed at early and late timepoints. We aimed to investigate differences in outcome after ABOi-rTX and ABOc-rTX. METHODS We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies published up until Dec 31, 2017, that reported outcome data (≥1 year of follow-up) after ABOi-rTx and included an ABO-compatible control group, by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase Ovid, MEDLINE Ovid, and PubMed. Trials on recipients of ABOi-rTx were assessed, if an ABO-compatible control group was included and if outcome data on at least graft or recipient survival with 1 year or more of follow-up were available. Exclusion criteria included case reports, editorials, reviews and letters, animal studies, meeting papers, studies unable to extract data, non-renal solid organ and bone-marrow transplant studies, and deceased donor ABOc-rTx. Data were extracted from published reports. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and graft survival at 1, 3, 5, and more than 8 years after transplantation. In the meta-analysis, we used a fixed-effects model if the I2 value was 0, and both a fixed-effects and random-effects model if I2 was more than 0. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018094550. FINDINGS 1264 studies were screened and 40 studies including 49 patient groups were identified. 65 063 patients were eligible for analysis, 7098 of whom had undergone ABOi-rTx. Compared with ABOc-rTx, ABOi-rTx was associated with significantly higher 1-year mortality (odds ratio [OR] 2·17 [95% CI 1·63-2·90], p<0·0001; I2=37%), 3 years (OR 1·89 [1·46-2·45], p<0·0001; I2=29%), and 5 years (OR 1·47 [1·08-2·00], p=0·010; I2=68%) following transplantation. Death-censored graft survival was lower with ABOi-rTx than with ABOc-rTx at 1 year (OR 2·52 [1·80-3·54], p<0·0001; I2=61%) and 3 years (OR 1·59 [1·15-2·18], p=0·0040; I2=58%) only. Graft losses were equivalent to that of ABOc-rTx after 5 years and patient survival after 8 years. No publication bias was detected and the results were robust to trial sequential analysis until 5 years after transplantation; thereafter, data became futile or inconclusive. INTERPRETATION Despite progress in desensitisation protocols and optimisation of ABOi-rTx procedures, excess mortality and loss of kidney grafts was found compared with ABOc-rTx within the first 3 years after transplantation. Only long-term outcomes after 5 years yielded equivalent survival rates and organ function. Awareness of the increased risks of infection, organ rejection, and bleeding could improve care of patients and promote efforts towards paired kidney exchange programmes. FUNDING None.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
(2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · Cited by 8,477
Jakobsen, J. C., Wetterslev, J., Winkel, P., Lange, T., & Gluud, C. (2014) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-120 · Cited by 704
The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews
Turner, R. M., Bird, S. M., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059202 · Cited by 672
Pogue, J. M., & Yusuf, S. (1997) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00051-2 · Cited by 415
Cited by
Connelly‐Smith, L., Alquist, C. R., Aqui, N. A., Hofmann, J. C., Klingel, R., Onwuemene, O. A., Patriquin, C. J., Pham, H. P., Sanchez, A. P., Schneiderman, J., et al. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Apheresis · doi:10.1002/jca.22043 · Cited by 684
Metadata
- Authors
- Scurt, F. G., Ewert, L., Mertens, P. R., Haller, H., Schmidt, B. M. W., & Chatzikyrkou, C.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-05
- Volume
- 393
- Issue
- 10185
- Pages
- 2059-2072
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2936839128
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 4.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical outcomes after ABO-incompatible renal transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32091-9
- The paper
- Scurt, F. G., Ewert, L., Mertens, P. R., Haller, H., Schmidt, B. M. W., & Chatzikyrkou, C. (2019). Clinical outcomes after ABO-incompatible renal transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32091-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.