ArticleClinical transplantation2020
Validating patient prioritization in the 2018 Revised United Network for Organ Sharing Heart Allocation System: A single-center experience.
Article in Clinical transplantation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Better Is the Enemy of Good: Ever-changing Heart Transplant Allocation.Transplantation direct · 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
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The 2018 Revised United Network for Organ Sharing Heart Allocation System (HAS) was proposed to reclassify status 1A candidates into groups of decreasing acuity; however, it does not take into account factors such as body mass index (BMI) and blood group which influence waitlist (WL) outcomes. We sought to validate patient prioritization in the new HAS at our center. We retrospectively evaluated patients listed for heart transplantation (n = 214) at Emory University Hospital from 2011 to 2017. Patients were reclassified into the 6-tier HAS. Multistate modeling and competing risk analysis were used to compare outcomes of transplantation and WL death/deterioration between new tiers. Additionally, a stratified sensitivity analysis by BMI and blood group was performed. Compared with tier 4 patients, there was progressively increasing hazard of WL death/deterioration in tier 3 (HR: 2.52, 95% CI: 1.37-4.63, P = .003) and tier 2 (HR: 5.03, 95% CI: 1.99-12.70, P < .001), without a difference in transplantation outcome. When stratified by BMI and blood group, this hierarchical association was not valid in patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m
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.