ArticleJAMA surgery2021
Sex Disparity in Liver Transplant and Access to Living Donation.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Addressing gender-based disparities in liver transplantation: A global analysis of surgical access and donor organ allocation.World journal of transplantation · 2026Article
- Sexual dimorphism in the liver.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Review
- The impact of male sex on outcomes in primary biliary cholangitis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Third annual transplant AI symposium: from organ matching to digital twins.Frontiers in transplantation · 2026Article
- Outcomes from Referral to Transplant for Patients with MASLD: A California Liver Network Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Sex disparities in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: long-term outcomes and recurrence predictors.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Article
- Sex-based Disparities in Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma and the Impact of the Growing Burden of NASH.Transplantation direct · 2024Article
- Exploiting gender-based biomarkers and drug targets: advancing personalized therapeutic strategies in hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- Review
- Current status of disparity in liver disease.World journal of hepatology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
18 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.