Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24692309›Full record

ArticleLiver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society2014

Decision making in liver transplantation--limited application of the liver donor risk index.

Leslie Mataya, Andrew Aronsohn, J Richard Thistlethwaite, Lainie Friedman Ross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Changes in Discard Rate After the Introduction of the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI).American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2016
    Article
  11. The corrected donor age for hepatitis C virus-infected liver transplant recipients.Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Leslie MatayaPritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago University, Chicago, IL.
Andrew Aronsohn
J Richard Thistlethwaite
Lainie Friedman Ross

Funding

Re-Engineering Translational Research at the University of ChicagoUL1TR000430 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI SOLWAY, JULIAN · 2012 to 2016
$20.2M
Short Term Training: Health Professional StudentsT35DK062719 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI CHANG, EUGENE B · 2003 to 2017
$2.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000430NIDDK NIH HHS 2T35DK062719-26NIDDK NIH HHS T35 DK062719
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The liver donor risk index (LDRI), originally developed in 2006 by Feng et al. and since modified, is a method of evaluating liver grafts from deceased donors through the determination of the relative risk of graft failure after transplantation. Online and paper surveys about attitudes and practices regarding decision making in liver transplantation and the role of the LDRI were sent to liver transplant physicians. One hundred forty-seven of 401 eligible respondents (37%) returned partial or complete surveys. The majority of the respondents were male (116/134 or 87%) and practiced in academic medical centers (128/138 or 93%). Transplant coordinators initially contacted the candidate with an offer in 81% of the programs. Eighty-eight of 143 respondents (62%) reported that they were very familiar with the LDRI, but the vast majority (114/137 or 83%) rarely or never discussed the concept of the LDRI with their patients. A majority of the respondents (96/132 or 73%) believed that the LDRI does not adequately describe a liver's relative risk of graft failure and that there are factors making the LDRI potentially misleading (122/138 or 88%). Nevertheless, 60 of 130 respondents (46%) believed that the LDRI would increase/improve shared decision making. The LDRI has not been widely adopted because of concerns that (1) it does not accurately reflect posttransplant survival, (2) it excludes relevant donor and recipient factors, and (3) it is too complicated for candidates to grasp. There is a need to improve it or to develop other decision-making tools to help promote shared decision making. There is also great diversity in how liver offers are made to ambulatory candidates and in how transplant programs address a candidate's refusal. Research is needed to determine evidence-based best practice.

Indexed as

Decision MakingLiver TransplantationAcademic Medical CentersAdultEnd Stage Liver DiseaseFemaleGraft SurvivalHumansLiverLiving DonorsMaleMiddle AgedPhysiciansRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesTissue and Organ Procurement

Identifiers

PMID24692309
PMCPMC4072766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.