ArticleCureus2023
Acute Liver Failure Prognostic Criteria: It's Time to Revisit.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current status of etiology and outcomes of acute liver failure in India-A multicentre study from tertiary centres.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Validation of prognostic scores for predicting acute liver failure and in-hospital death in patients with dengue-induced severe hepatitis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Impact of Bacterial or Fungal Infections in Acute Liver Failure Patients from India.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAcute liver failure (ALF) is a devastating disease, and patients are at a higher risk of death without liver transplantation. Indicators are needed to identify the risk of death in ALF, which will help in the timely referral of patients to specialized centers. Clichy criteriaand King's College Hospital (KCH) criteria are the most widely used prognostic criteria. Real-life application of Clichy criteria is limited due to the non-availability of factor V level measurement. KCH criteria have good specificity but low sensitivity to predict outcomes. Therefore, we attempted to use the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and chronic liver failure-sequential organ failure assessment (CLIF-SOFA) score in ALF patients as prognostic indicators and need for liver transplantation.
methodsForty-one patients with ALF were enrolled in the study. On the day of admission, MELD and CLIF-SOFA scores were calculated for each patient. Area under receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and diagnostic accuracy (DA) of MELD and CLIF-SOFA score were calculated to predict the outcome of the patients.
resultsOut of 41 patients, nine patients left against medical advice. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and DA for the MELD score of enrolled patients in the study were 81.5%, 62.5%, 59.5%, 83.3%, 70.1%, and for the CLIF-SOFA score of enrolled patients in the study were 88.9%, 90.0%, 85.7%, 92.3%, 89.6% respectively. Patients who did not survive had higher INR, MELD, CLIF-SOFA scores, and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) grades. Five patients who had a combination of MELD ≥30 and CLIF-SOFA ≥10, expired.
conclusionIn our study, we used MELD score and CLIF-SOFA as prognostic markers, and we concluded that CLIF-SOFA is a better predictor of mortality than MELD score in terms of sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, and diagnostic accuracy. AUROC for CLIF-SOFA score is higher when compared to the MELD score.
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.