ArticleClinical transplantation2015
Comparing 10-yr renal outcomes in deceased donor and living donor liver transplants.
Article in Clinical transplantation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Increased Surgical Complications but Improved Overall Survival with Adult Living Donor Compared to Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.BioMed research international · 2020Pooled it
- Review
- A comparison of rates and severity of chronic kidney disease in deceased-donor and living-donor liver transplant recipients: times matterTurkish journal of medical sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Few studies have explored whether the type of LT, deceased donor LT (DDLT) or living donor LT (LDLT), impacts long-term renal outcomes. We performed a retrospective analysis of 220 LT recipients at our institution to study their renal outcomes at 10 yr. Exclusion criteria were age ≤ 18 yr, graft survival ≤ 6 months, and multiorgan transplants; 108 DDLTs and 62 LDLTs were eligible. At baseline, DDLTs had a lower eGFR than LDLTs and 10.2% of DDLTs were on dialysis as compared to 0% of LDLTs. At 10 yr, seven DDLT and three LDLT recipients required dialysis or renal transplant (p = 0.75). In recipients with graft survival >6 months, DDLTs had a slower decline in eGFR as compared to LDLTs (p < 0.01). Among LDLTs, the decline in eGFR continued over the entire 10-yr period, whereas among DDLTs, the decline in eGFR slowed significantly after six months (p = 0.01). This difference between the two groups was not seen among patients in the highest quartile of baseline eGFR. Patient survival and graft survival were similar. In conclusion, the incidence of end-stage renal disease was similar in both DDLT and LDLT patients, but LDLT recipients seem to have a more sustained decline in eGFR when compared with DDLT recipients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.