ArticleHepatology (Baltimore, Md.)2019
Deceased Pediatric Donor Livers: How Current Policy Drives Allocation and Transplantation.
Article in Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Abnormal Liver Biopsies of Donor Grafts in Pediatric Liver Transplantation: How Do They Fare?Annals of transplantation · 2024Article
- Outcomes in Adult Liver Transplant Recipients Using Pediatric Deceased Donor Liver Grafts.Transplantation direct · 2022Article
- Living Donor Versus Deceased Donor Pediatric Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Transplantation direct · 2021Article
- Save the Children: The Ethical Argument for Preferential Priority to Minors in Deceased Donor Liver Allocation.Clinical liver disease · 2021Review
- Split liver transplantation is utilized infrequently and concentrated at few transplant centers in the United States.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2020Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Each year, approximately 60 children, representing 12% of waitlist candidates, die awaiting liver transplantation. The current allocation algorithm for pediatric donor livers prioritizes local/regional adults over national children. We attempted to better understand the impact of the present algorithm on pediatric candidates. We analyzed pediatric donor liver offers from 2010 to 2014. Donors and recipients were classified based on age. We mapped allocation and acceptance patterns and used subgroup analyses to explore the significance of donor service areas (DSAs) with low pediatric transplant volumes. We used Cox proportional hazard regressions to evaluate posttransplantation outcomes: 3,318 pediatric donor livers were transplanted into 3,482 recipients, and 45% (1,569) were adults. Of the 1,569 adults, 25% (390) received a pediatric organ that was never offered to children; 52% (204) of these 390 pediatric organs originated in the 37 DSAs, with ≤25 pediatric liver transplantations; 278 children died or were delisted due to illness during the same time, with higher mortality rates in the 37 DSAs (10% versus 6%, P < 0.01). Compared to adults, pediatric recipients aged <12 years had lower risks of posttransplant mortality (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.81; P < 0.01). Conclusions: We found that 45% of pediatric donor livers were transplanted into adults: 390 adults were transplanted with pediatric organs never offered to children, while 278 children died or were delisted due to illness, which was more apparent in DSAs with low pediatric transplant volumes; we advocate for a change to allocation policies to allow pediatric organs to be offered to national children with status 1B or Model for End-Stage Liver Disease/Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease >15 before being offered to local/regional + circle non-status 1A adults.
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.