Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34406347›Full record

ArticleJAMA surgery2021

Sex Disparity in Liver Transplant and Access to Living Donation.

Ravikiran S Karnam, Shiyi Chen, Wei Xu, Catherine Chen, Praniya Elangainesan, Anand Ghanekar, Ian McGilvray, Trevor Reichman, Blayne Sayed, Markus Selzner and 8 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Sexual dimorphism in the liver.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Current status of disparity in liver disease.World journal of hepatology · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Ravikiran S KarnamMulti Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Shiyi ChenDepartment of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Cancer Research Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Wei XuDepartment of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Cancer Research Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Catherine ChenMulti Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Praniya ElangainesanMulti Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Anand GhanekarMulti Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ian McGilvrayMulti Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Trevor ReichmanMulti Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Blayne SayedMulti Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Markus SelznerMulti Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gonzalo SapisochinMulti Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Zita GalvinMulti Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gideon HirschfieldDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sumeet K AsraniBaylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Nazia SelznerMulti Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mark CattralMulti Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Leslie LillyMulti Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mamatha BhatMulti Organ Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
University Health Network · CAPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre · CAToronto General Hospital · CAToronto General Hospital Research InstituteBaylor University Medical Center · USNarayana Health · INUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD)-based organ allocation system has significantly decreased mortality on the transplant waiting list for patients with end-stage liver disease. However, women have remained at a disadvantage with respect to access to deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) even after introduction of the MELD score for organ allocation. Objective: To determine whether availability of living donation in a transplant program can offset inequity in liver transplant (LT) allocation for women. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study retrospectively analyzed adult patients listed for LT at the University Health Network in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Patients included had a potential living donor (pLD) at the moment of listing. This study was performed from November 13, 2012, to May 31, 2019. A total of 1289 listed patients (830 men; 459 women) were analyzed during the study period. Main Outcomes and Measures: This study performed survival analysis and competing-risk analysis to delineate how access to livers from living donors was associated with events in women vs men on the transplant waiting list (LT, death, or dropout). Results: Of 1289 included patients, 459 (35.6%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 56.1 (10.0) years at assessment and listing. A total of 783 of 1289 listed patients underwent LT. Among those with no pLD at assessment, there was a higher median (range) Model for End-stage Liver Disease incorporating sodium levels (MELD-Na) score at listing (22 [6-50] vs 19 [6-50]; P < .001) and at LT (27 [6-49] vs 20 [6-52]; P < .001) in women receiving DDLT. Women were at a significant disadvantage without a pLD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04-1.60; P = .01); there was no difference in access to LT with availability of a pLD (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76,-1.14; P = .44). The instantaneous rate of receiving a transplant in men with a pLD was 1.39 times higher than men who did not have a pLD (HR, 1.39; 95% CI; P < .001) and the instantaneous rate of receiving a transplant in women with a pLD was 1.92 times higher than in women who did not (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.51-2.44; P < .001). The HR was 1.38 times higher in women compared with men across the MELD-Na score strata (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84; P = .03) and 2.04 times higher when the MELD-Na score was less than 20 (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.31-3.14; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These study findings suggest that women can overcome the complex problem of allocation inequity with access to livers from living donors. Women with access only to DDLT were much more unwell than men independent of liver disease at the time of listing, dropout, or LT. Therefore, the wider availability of living donation liver transplant would be helpful in addressing the sex disparity in access to LT in the current MELD-Na era.

Indexed as

Healthcare DisparitiesHealth Services AccessibilityLiver TransplantationLiving DonorsAgedEnd Stage Liver DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SelectionRetrospective StudiesTissue and Organ ProcurementWaiting Lists

Identifiers

PMID34406347
PMCPMC8374729
OpenAlexW3194015870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.