Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36495912›Full record

ReviewThe lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology2023

Enhanced recovery for liver transplantation: recommendations from the 2022 International Liver Transplantation Society consensus conference.

Joerg M Pollok, Pascale Tinguely, Marina Berenguer, Claus U Niemann, Dimitri A Raptis, Michael Spiro, ERAS4OLT.org collaborative

Erratum issuedAbstract readReviewConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Joerg M PollokClinical Service of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Royal Free Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Pascale TinguelyClinical Service of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Royal Free Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Marina BerenguerLiver Unit, CIBERehd, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe-Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Claus U NiemannDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Surgery, Division of Transplantation, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Dimitri A RaptisClinical Service of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Royal Free Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Michael SpiroDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Free Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; The Royal Free Perioperative Research Group, Royal Free Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: michaelspiro@nhs.net.
ERAS4OLT.org collaborative

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is much controversy regarding enhanced recovery for recipients of liver transplants from deceased and living donors. The objectives of this Review were to summarise current knowledge on individual enhanced recovery elements on short-term outcomes, identify key components for comprehensive pathways, and create internationally accepted guidelines on enhanced recovery for liver-transplant recipients. The ERAS4OLT.org collaborative partnered by the International Liver Transplantation Society performed systematic literature reviews on the effect of 32 relevant enhanced perioperative recovery elements on short-term outcomes, and global specialists prepared expert statements on deceased and living donor liver transplantation. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach was used for rating of quality of evidence and grading of recommendations. A virtual international consensus conference was held in January, 2022, in which results were presented, voted on by the audience, and discussed by an independent international jury of eight members, applying the Danish model of consensus. 273 liver transplantation specialists from 30 countries prepared expert statements on elements of enhanced recovery for liver transplantation based on the systematic literature reviews. The consensus conference yielded 80 final recommendations, covering aspects of enhanced recovery for preoperative assessment and optimisation, intraoperative surgical and anaesthetic conduct, and postoperative management for the recipients of liver transplants from both deceased and living donors, and for the living donor. The recommendations represent a comprehensive overview of the relevant elements and areas of enhanced recovery for liver transplantation. These internationally established guidelines could direct the development of enhanced recovery programmes worldwide, allowing adjustments according to local resources and practices.

Indexed as

Liver TransplantationHumansLiving Donors

Identifiers

PMID36495912

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.