The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lack of Improvement in Renal Allograft Survival Despite a Marked Decrease in Acute Rejection Rates Over the Most Recent Era
Open accessAbstract
Acute rejection is known to have a strong impact on graft survival. Many studies suggest that very low acute rejection rates can be achieved with current immunosuppressive protocols. We wanted to investigate how acute rejection rates have evolved on a national level in the U.S. and how this has impacted graft survival in the most recent era of kidney transplantation. For this purpose, we analyzed data provided by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients regarding all adult first renal transplants between 1995 and 2000. We noted a significant decrease in overall acute rejection rates during the first 6 months, during the first year, and also in late rejections during the second year after transplantation. Despite this decrease in the rate of acute rejection, there was no significant improvement in overall graft survival; furthermore, we noted a statistically significant trend towards worse death-censored graft survival. There was also a trend for a greater proportion of rejection episodes to fail to recover to previous baseline function after treatment. Our data suggest that decreasing acute rejection rates between 1995 and 2000 have not led to an increase in long-term graft survival. Part of this discordance might be related to a higher proportion of acute rejections which have not resolved with full functional recovery in more recent years. However, the etiology of this concerning trend for worse death censored graft survival in recent years will warrant further investigation.
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
Levey, A. S., Bosch, J. P., Lewis, J. B., Greene, T., Rogers, N., Roth, D., & for the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group* (1999) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-130-6-199903160-00002 · Cited by 15,079
Cited by
Rejection of the Kidney Allograft
Nankivell, B. J., & Alexander, S. I. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra0902927 · Cited by 605
Denhaerynck, K., Dobbels, F., Cleemput, I., Desmyttere, A., Schafer-Keller, P., Schaub, S., & De Geest, S. (2005) · Transplant International · doi:10.1111/j.1432-2277.2005.00176.x · Cited by 424
Denhaerynck, K., Steiger, J., Bock, A., Schäfer-Keller, P., Köfer, S., Thannberger, N., & De Geest, S. (2007) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01611.x · Cited by 184
Does belatacept improve outcomes for kidney transplant recipients? A systematic review
Talawila, N., & Pengel, L. H. M. (2015) · Transplant International · doi:10.1111/tri.12605 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Meier-Kriesche, H.-U., Schold, J. D., Srinivas, T. R., & Kaplan, B.
- Venue
- American Journal of Transplantation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-03
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 378-383
- ISSN
- 1600-6135 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2170264508
- Cited by
- 1,287
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 35.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Lack of Improvement in Renal Allograft Survival Despite a Marked Decrease in Acute Rejection Rates Over the Most Recent Era. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00332.x
- The paper
- Meier-Kriesche, H.-U., Schold, J. D., Srinivas, T. R., & Kaplan, B. (2004). Lack of Improvement in Renal Allograft Survival Despite a Marked Decrease in Acute Rejection Rates Over the Most Recent Era. American Journal of Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00332.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.