Evidence Hub

Urinary CXCL9 for kidney allograft rejection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance across clinical scenarios

Yuchen Lou, Chen-Xiao Ma, Xiaodan Zhang, Meng Zhang, Hongrui Chai, Chunpeng Wang, Xin Liu

Transplantation reviews, 2026

875 participants

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Early rejection detection is crucial for kidney transplant success, yet protocol biopsies are invasive and impractical for routine monitoring. Urinary Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 9 (CXCL9), which recruits T-cells during rejection, shows promise as a non-invasive alternative, but its diagnostic performance across clinical contexts requires validation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure through September 2025 for studies evaluating urinary CXCL9 in biopsy-proven rejection. After quality assessment with QUADAS-2, we calculated pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios using bivariate random-effects models, with subgroup analyses by clinical scenario (predictive monitoring vs. diagnostic workup) and confounding factors (BK viremia, urinary infections).

RESULTS

Ten studies (875 patients) met inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.75-0.87), specificity 0.82 (0.74-0.88), DOR 20.66 (11.16-38.24), and AUC 0.83 (0.79-0.86). Performance was notably better in stable patients undergoing predictive monitoring (sensitivity 0.88, specificity 0.86, DOR 43.09) than in symptomatic patients (sensitivity 0.79, specificity 0.71, DOR 10.60). BK viremia (BKV) and urinary tract infections (UTI) markedly increased false-positives. Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 80%), driven mainly by assay platform differences and lack of standardized cutoffs.

CONCLUSION

Urinary…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 875 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free