ArticleJournal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition2019
The Impact of Increased Allocation Priority for Children Awaiting Liver Transplant: A Liver Simulated Allocation Model (LSAM) Analysis.
Article in Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Liver simulated allocation model does not effectively predict organ offer decisions for pediatric liver transplant candidates.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2021Article
- Impact of Acuity Circles on Outcomes for Pediatric Liver Transplant Candidates.Transplantation · 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
15 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to investigate the impact of prioritizing infants, children, adolescents, and the sickest adults (Status 1) for deceased donor livers. We compared outcomes under two "SharePeds" allocation schema, which prioritize children and Status 1 adults for national sharing and enhanced access to pediatric donors or all donors younger than 35 years, to outcomes under the allocation plan approved by the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network in December 2017 (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network [OPTN] 12-2017).
methodsThe 2017 Liver Simulated Allocation Model and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data on all US liver transplant candidates and liver offers 7/2013 to 6/2016 were used to predict waitlist deaths, transplants, and post-transplant deaths under the OPTN 12-2017 and SharePeds schema.
resultsPrioritizing national sharing of pediatric donor livers with children (SharePeds 1) would decrease waitlist deaths for infants (<2 years, P = 0.0003) and children (2-11 years, P = 0.001), with no significant change for adults (P = 0.13). Prioritizing national sharing of all younger than 35-year-old deceased donor livers with children and Status 1A adults (SharePeds 2) would decrease waitlist deaths for infants, children, and all Status 1A/B patients (P < 0.0001 for each). SharePeds 1 and 2 would increase the number of liver transplants done in infants, children, and adolescents compared to the OPTN-2017 schema (P < 0.00005 for all age groups). Both SharePeds schema would increase the percentage of pediatric livers transplanted into pediatric recipients.
conclusionsWaitlist deaths could be significantly decreased, and liver transplants increased, for children and the sickest adults, by prioritizing children for pediatric livers and with broader national sharing of deceased donor livers.
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.