ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2023
Revising the MELD Score to Address Sex-Bias in Liver Transplant Prioritization for a German Cohort.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- From MASLD to MELD 3.0: Integrating the Spectrum of Liver Disease Risk Stratification into Primary Care.The Eurasian journal of medicine · 2026Article
- Sex, racial, and ethnic disparities in United States liver transplantation clinical trials.World journal of hepatology · 2025Article
- The Development and Appraisal of MELD 3.0 in Liver Diseases: Good Things Never Come Easy.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2025Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Prioritization of patients for liver transplantation in Germany relies on the MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scoring system that does not consider the patient's sex. Many studies have shown that women are disadvantaged by the MELD score. Using a large patient cohort from a German liver transplant centre, we investigated options to reduce gender inequality in the patient prioritization for liver transplantation. (2) Methods: We calculated female-as-male MELD scores in our cohort by substituting the serum creatinine of a female patient with that of their male equivalent to test for the fairness of the scores. We investigated the effects of the female-as-male scores compared to the original MELD score of 1759 patients listed for liver transplantation. (3) Results: Serum creatinine sex correction (female-as-male) for MELD scores added up to 5.4 points in females, while the median changed by +1.6 points for females. We identified 72 females with an original MELD score < 20, for whom the adjusted female-as-male MELD score would be >20, thus giving them a better chance to receive a liver transplant. (4) Conclusions: Mathematical conversion of female to male creatinine concentrations identified disadvantages in liver transplantation prioritization for females and ascertained MELD 3.0 as having high potential to compensate for these inequalities.
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.