Trial reportAnnals of transplantation2022
Clinical Validation of a Novel Scoring System Based on Donor and Recipient Risk Factors for Predicting Outcomes in Liver Transplantation.
Trial report in Annals of transplantation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hepatic Artery Thrombosis After Orthotopic Liver Transplant: A 20-Year Monocentric Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adequate donor and recipient matching in liver transplantation is crucial to improve patient survival. Our objective was to propose and validate a new model for predicting outcomes using donor and recipient scoring criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS We retrospectively analyzed data of all patients (n=932) who underwent liver transplantation (n=1106) from January 2006 to December 2018. For score standardization, 30% (n=280) of patients were randomly selected for analysis and divided into 3 categories: ≤4 points, 5 to 8 points, and >8 points. Scoring system validation was performed on a dataset with 70% (n=652) of the patients. RESULTS Survival of the stratified group (30%) was significant (P<0.001). Scores of 4 to 8 points presented lower risk of death (1.74 [CI 0.97-3.13; P=0.062]), while >8 points presented higher risk (2.74 [CI 1.36-5.57; P=0.005]). In the validation score (70%), global survival was significant (P<0.0016); patients with scores of 4 to 8 points had lower risk of death (1.16 [CI 1.16-2.38; P=0.005]); and scores >8 points (2.22 [CI 1.40-3.50; P<0.001]), retransplant, fulminant hepatitis, previous large abdominal/biliary tree surgery, MELD score, and serum creatinine before liver transplantation >1.5 mg/dL (P<0.05) presented higher risk. Individual recipient factors with 4 to 8 points had a lower risk of death (2.29 [CI 1.82-2.87; P<0.0001]) than those with scores >8 points (4.02 [CI 2.22-7.26; P<0.0001]). CONCLUSIONS A novel prognostic-based scoring system using donor and recipient characteristics was proposed and clinically validated. Two-factor scoring indicated the superiority of the predictability outcome and improved prediction of higher mortality.
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.