SWOT Analysis of Banff: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of the International Banff Consensus Process and Classification System for Renal Allograft Pathology
暂无分享,去创建一个
P. Halloran | M. Mengel | B. Sis | M. Mengel | B. Sis | P. F. Halloran | P. F. Halloran | Michael Mengel | P. Halloran
[1] R. Colvin,et al. Banff '05 Meeting Report: Differential Diagnosis of Chronic Allograft Injury and Elimination of Chronic Allograft Nephropathy (‘CAN’) , 2007, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.
[2] M. Hammond,et al. A working formulation for the standardization of nomenclature in the diagnosis of heart and lung rejection: Heart Rejection Study Group. The International Society for Heart Transplantation. , 1990, The Journal of heart transplantation.
[3] R. Waldherr,et al. Impact of the Banff '97 classification for histological diagnosis of rejection on clinical outcome and renal function parameters after kidney transplantation. , 2000, Transplantation.
[4] G. Dammin. The kidney as a homograft and its host. , 1960, Medical bulletin.
[5] A. Melk,et al. Lesions of T‐Cell‐Mediated Kidney Allograft Rejection in Mice Do Not Require Perforin or Granzymes A and B , 2004, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.
[6] Philip F Halloran,et al. Banff 2003 Meeting Report: New Diagnostic Insights and Standards , 2004, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.
[7] A. Schwarz,et al. Infiltrates in Protocol Biopsies from Renal Allografts , 2007, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.
[8] D. Rush,et al. Reproducibility of the Banff classification in subclinical kidney transplant rejection , 2005, Clinical transplantation.
[9] N Taub,et al. International variation in the interpretation of renal transplant biopsies: report of the CERTPAP Project. , 2001, Kidney international.
[10] D. Rush,et al. Report of the Third Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology (July 20-24, 1995) on classification and lesion scoring in renal allograft pathology. , 1996, Transplantation proceedings.
[11] J. Diebold,et al. Lymphoma classification--from controversy to consensus: the R.E.A.L. and WHO Classification of lymphoid neoplasms. , 2000, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
[12] P. Halloran,et al. Heterogeneity in the Evolution and Mechanisms of the Lesions of Kidney Allograft Rejection in Mice , 2003, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.
[13] J F Burdick,et al. International standardization of criteria for the histologic diagnosis of renal allograft rejection: the Banff working classification of kidney transplant pathology. , 1993, Kidney international.
[14] D. Rush. Protocol biopsies should be part of the routine management of kidney transplant recipients. Pro. , 2002, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.
[15] M. Fishbein,et al. Antibody‐Mediated Rejection Criteria – an Addition to the Banff ′97 Classification of Renal Allograft Rejection , 2003, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.
[16] I. Hutchinson,et al. INVESTIGATION OF THE POTENTIAL USE OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENT GLIOTOXIN IN ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION , 1995, Transplantation.
[17] D. Salomon. Protocol biopsies should be part of the routine management of kidney transplant recipients. Con. , 2002, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.
[18] Philip F Halloran,et al. Expression of CTL Associated Transcripts Precedes the Development of Tubulitis in T‐Cell Mediated Kidney Graft Rejection , 2005, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.
[19] P. Nickerson,et al. Beneficial effects of treatment of early subclinical rejection: a randomized study. , 1998, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN.
[20] K. Famulski,et al. Tubulitis and Epithelial Cell Alterations in Mouse Kidney Transplant Rejection Are Independent of CD103, Perforin or Granzymes A/B , 2006, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.
[21] N. Marcussen,et al. Reproducibility of the Banff classification of renal allograft pathology. Inter- and intraobserver variation. , 1995, Transplantation.
[22] H. E. Hansen,et al. The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. , 1999, Kidney international.
[23] H. E. Hansen,et al. Clinical validation and reproducibility of the Banff schema for renal allograft pathology. , 1995, Transplantation proceedings.
[24] E. Woodle,et al. The relationship of untreated borderline infiltrates by the Banff criteria to acute rejection in renal allograft biopsies. , 1999, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN.
[25] M. Haas,et al. Acute renal allograft rejection with intimal arteritis: histologic predictors of response to therapy and graft survival. , 2002, Kidney international.
[26] B. Burke,et al. Evaluation of pathologic criteria for acute renal allograft rejection: reproducibility, sensitivity, and clinical correlation. , 1997, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN.
[27] P. Halloran,et al. Early Loss of Renal Transcripts in Kidney Allografts: Relationship to the Development of Histologic Lesions and Alloimmune Effector Mechanisms , 2007, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.
[28] P. Nickerson,et al. Reproducibility of the Banff schema in reporting protocol biopsies of stable renal allografts. , 2002, Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association.
[29] H. Gritsch,et al. Clinical significance of renal allograft biopsies with "borderline changes," as defined in the Banff Schema. , 1997, Transplantation.
[30] N. Marcussen,et al. Morphometric and immunohistochemical investigation of renal biopsies from patients with transplant ATN, native ATN, or acute graft rejection. , 1996, Transplantation proceedings.
[31] L. Racusen. Molecular techniques in transplantation. , 2004, Transplantation proceedings.
[32] P. Kuo,et al. Significance of the Banff borderline biopsy. , 1996, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.
[33] P. Halloran,et al. The Banff schema four years later. , 1996, Transplantation Proceedings.
[34] S. Cramer,et al. International variation in histologic grading is large and persistent feedback does not improve reproducibility. , 2004, The American journal of surgical pathology.
[35] Dammin Gj. The kidney as a homograft and its host. , 1960 .