ArticleClinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association2023
Understanding Prognosis: Discrepancy in Prognosis Estimates Between Patients With Cirrhosis and their Hepatologists.
Article in Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advance Directive Completion Among Community-Dwelling Adults with Decompensated Cirrhosis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Barriers and Strategies to Effective Serious Illness Communication for Patients with End-Stage Liver Disease in the Intensive Care Setting.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Increasing Healthcare System Empathy for Patients with Advanced Liver Disease: My Top 10 Lessons in Palliative Hepatology.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
- Serious Illness Communication in Cirrhosis Care: Tools to Improve Illness Understanding, Prognostic Understanding, and Care Planning.Gastro hep advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsPatients require a clear understanding of their prognosis to make informed decisions about their care. The aim of this study was to compare the perceptions of prognosis and transplant candidacy between patients with cirrhosis and their hepatologists.
methodsPatients with cirrhosis and their hepatologists were prospectively recruited at an urban liver transplant center. Patients and hepatologists were asked about transplant candidacy and about how many years patients would live with and without a liver transplant. Agreement between patients and hepatologists was assessed with the weighted kappa statistic. Associations between patient/hepatologists' prognostic estimates and those predicted by patients' Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium (MELD-Na) score were estimated using the Pearson correlation coefficient.
resultsSeventy patients and 6 hepatologists were enrolled in the study. Patients were predominantly male (61.4%) and white (68.6%), with a mean MELD-Na score of 19 ± 9. There was no-slight agreement between patients and hepatologists regarding survival without and with a liver transplant (κ = 0.1 and 0.2, respectively), with patients more optimistic than their hepatologists. There was greater agreement between patients and hepatologists about transplant candidacy (κ = 0.6). There was a negligible association between MELD-Na and patient estimates (r = -0.24, P = .05) but a moderate association between MELD-Na and hepatologist estimates (r = -0.51, P < .001), with higher MELD-Na scores associated with lower predicted survival.
conclusionsPatients with cirrhosis are more optimistic and less accurate in their predictions of survival compared with hepatologists, although they are more realistic about their transplant candidacy. Aligning patient and provider expectations may increase the likelihood that patients receive value-concordant care.
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.