Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 263

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin for immunosuppression in renal transplantation: meta-analysis of randomised trials

Open access
Knoll, G. A, Bell, R. C·1999·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare tacrolimus with cyclosporin for immunosuppression in renal transplantation. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomised trials of two treatments after kidney transplantation. IDENTIFICATION: Four studies involving 1037 patients. Trials were included if they were randomised, the intervention group received tacrolimus, the control group received cyclosporin, the patients were followed for a minimum of 12 months, and patient survival, graft survival, incidence of acute rejection, need for antilymphocyte treatment, or the prevalence of diabetes mellitus after transplant was reported. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pooled estimates of patient mortality, allograft loss, and episodes of acute rejection 1 year after transplantation. RESULTS: The odds ratio for loss of allograft with tacrolimus compared with cyclosporin was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.40). The odds ratio for mortality with tacrolimus was 1.07 (0.47 to 2.48). Treatment with tacrolimus was associated with a reduction in episodes of acute rejection (0.52; 0.36 to 0.75), a reduction in the use of antilymphocyte antibodies to treat rejection (0.37; 0.25 to 0. 56), and an increased prevalence of diabetes mellitus after transplantation (5.03; 2.04 to 12.36) compared with treatment with cyclosporin. CONCLUSIONS: After renal transplantation, immunosuppression with tacrolimus results in a significant reduction in acute rejection compared with cyclosporin. Follow up studies of high methodological quality are needed to determine whether tacrolimus improves long term renal graft survival.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.318.7191.1104

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 263

Metadata

Authors
Knoll, G. A., & Bell, R. C.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1999-04-24
Volume
318
Issue
7191
Pages
1104-1107
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1998099663
Cited by
263
References
3
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin for immunosuppression in renal transplantation: meta-analysis of randomised trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.318.7191.1104
The paper
Knoll, G. A., & Bell, R. C. (1999). Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin for immunosuppression in renal transplantation: meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7191.1104

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.