ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2020
Hepatic Encephalopathy and Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis Improve Cirrhosis Outcome Prediction: A Modified Seven-Stage Model as a Clinical Alternative to MELD.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2020. 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.
- Factors associated with refractory ascites and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in a predominantly Hispanic population: A retrospective analysis.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Stable Nitroxide as Diagnostic Tools for Monitoring of Oxidative Stress and Hypoalbuminemia in the Context of COVID-19.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- A Validated Composite Score Demonstrates Potential Superiority to MELD-Based Systems in Predicting Short-Term Survival in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis and Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis-A Preliminary Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Bacteremia (Sepsis), Hepatorenal Syndrome, and Serum Creatinine Levels Rather than Types or Microbial Patterns Predicted the Short-Term Survival of Cirrhotic Patients Complicated with Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Classification of cirrhosis based on clinical stages is rapid and based on five stages at present. Two other relevant events, hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), can be considered in a clinical perspective but no study has implemented a seven-stage classification and confirmed its value before. In addition, long-term validation of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) in large cohorts of patients with cirrhosis and comparison with clinical findings are insufficient. Therefore, we performed a study to address these items. From the Chang-Gung Research Database (CGRD), 20,782 patients with cirrhosis were enrolled for an historical survival study. The MELD score, the five-stage clinical score (i.e., occurrence of esophageal varices (EV), EV bleeding, ascites, sepsis) and a novel seven-stage clinical score (i.e., occurrence of EV, EV bleeding, ascites, sepsis, HE, SBP) were compared with their Cox models by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The addition of HE and SBP to the seven-stage model had a 5% better prediction result than the five-stage model did in the survival ROC analysis. The result showed that the seven clinical stages are associated with an increased risk for mortality. However, the predicted performances of the seven-stage model and MELD system are likely equivalent. In conclusion, the study (i) proved that clinical staging of cirrhosis based on seven items/stages had higher prognostic value than the five-stage model and (ii) confirmed the validity of the MELD criteria vs. clinical assessment.
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.