Twitter debate: controversies in liver transplantation.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Ensuring equity in access to liver transplant for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure across the UK.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025
   Article
2. Regional variations in inpatient decompensated cirrhosis mortality may be associated with access to specialist care: results from a multicentre retrospective study.Frontline gastroenterology · 2024
   Article
3. Satellite liver transplant centres significantly improve transplant assessment outcomes for patients with chronic liver disease but not hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.Frontline gastroenterology · 2023
   Article
4. The evolution of the liver transplant candidate.Frontiers in transplantation · 2023
   Review

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as