Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 289

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cytomegalovirus in transplantation – challenging the status quo

Fishman, Jay A, Emery, Vincent, Freeman, Richard, Pascual, Manuel, Rostaing, Lionel, Schlitt, Hans J, Sgarabotto, Dino, Torre‐Cisneros, Julian, Uknis, Marc E·2007·Clinical Transplantation

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection of solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients causes both ‘‘direct’’ and ‘‘indirect’’ effects including allograft rejection, decreased graft and patient survival, and predisposition to opportunistic infections and malignancies. Options for CMV prevention include pre‐emptive therapy, whereby anti‐CMV agents are administered based on sensitive viral assays, or universal prophylaxis of all at‐risk patients. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages in terms of efficacy, costs, and side effects. Standards of care for prophylaxis have not been established. Methods: A committee of international experts was convened to review the available data regarding CMV prophylaxis and to compare preventative strategies for CMV after transplantation from seropositive donors or in seropositive recipients. Results: Pre‐emptive therapy requires frequent monitoring with subsequent treatment of disease and associated costs, while universal prophylaxis results in greater exposure to potential toxicities and costs of drugs. The advantages of prophylaxis include suppressing asymptomatic viremia and prevention of both direct and indirect effects of CMV infection. Meta analyses reveal decreased in mortality for patients receiving CMV prophylaxis. Costs associated with prophylaxis are less than for routine monitoring and pre‐emptive therapy. The optimal duration of antiviral prophylaxis remains undefined. Extended prophylaxis may improve clinical outcomes in the highest‐risk patient populations including donor‐seropositive/recipient‐seronegative renal transplants and in CMV‐infected lung and heart transplantation. Conclusions: Prophylaxis is beneficial in preventing direct and indirect effects of CMV infection in transplant recipients, affecting both allograft and patient survival. More studies are necessary to define optimal prophylaxis regimens.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2006.00618.x

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 30 references

Cited by

See all 289

Metadata

Authors
Fishman, J. A., Emery, V., Freeman, R., Pascual, M., Rostaing, L., Schlitt, H. J., Sgarabotto, D., Torre‐Cisneros, J., & Uknis, M. E.
Venue
Clinical Transplantation
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-03
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
149-158
ISSN
  • 0902-0063 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-0012
OpenAlex
W2026145100
Cited by
289
References
30
FWCI
13.50
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: Cytomegalovirus in transplantation – challenging the status quo. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1399-0012.2006.00618.x
The paper
Fishman, J. A., Emery, V., Freeman, R., Pascual, M., Rostaing, L., Schlitt, H. J., Sgarabotto, D., Torre‐Cisneros, J., & Uknis, M. E. (2007). Cytomegalovirus in transplantation – challenging the status quo. Clinical Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0012.2006.00618.x

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.