Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25017080›Full record

ReviewClinics in liver disease2014

Expanded criteria donors.

Sandy Feng, Jennifer C Lai

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinics in liver disease, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Biliary Viability Assessment and Treatment Options of Biliary Injury During Normothermic Liver Perfusion-A Systematic Review.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sandy FengDivision of Abdominal Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of California, 505 Parnassus Avenue, UCSF Box 0780, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA. Electronic address: Sandy.feng@ucsfmedctr.org.
Jennifer C LaiDivision of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

UCSF Liver Core CenterP30DK026743 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Holger Willenbring · 1986 to 2026
$30.7M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK026743
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The greatest challenge facing liver transplantation today is the shortage of donor livers. Demand far exceeds supply, and this deficit has driven expansion of what is considered an acceptable organ. The evolving standard has not come without costs, however, as each new frontier of expanded donor quality (i.e., advancing donor age, donation after cardiac death, and split liver) may have traded wait-list for post-transplant morbidity and mortality. This article delineates the nature and severity of risk associated with specific deceased donor liver characteristics and recommends strategies to maximally mitigate these risks.

Indexed as

Donor SelectionLiver TransplantationTissue DonorsAdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsChildDeathFatty LiverGraft SurvivalHepatitis, Viral, HumanHIV InfectionsHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasmsDeceased donorDonor ageOutcomesSteatosisSurgery

Identifiers

PMID25017080
PMCPMC4809362

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.