ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2023
Predicted Impact of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease 3.0 in a Region Suffering Severe Organ Shortage.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 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
- Comparison of Postoperative MELD-Based Scores in Predicting Mortality After Liver Transplantation: A Retrospective Comparative Study.International journal of hepatology · 2026Article
- Validation of novel scoring systems for acute decompensated cirrhosis identifies PBC as an independent poor prognostic factor: a single-center Japanese cohort study.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- The Development and Appraisal of MELD 3.0 in Liver Diseases: Good Things Never Come Easy.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe model for end-stage liver disease 3.0 (MELD3.0) is expected to address the flaws of the current allocation system for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). We aimed to validate MELD3.0 in the Korean population where living donor liver transplantation is predominant due to organ shortages.
methodsKorean large-volume single-centric waitlist data were merged with the Korean Network for Organ Sharing (KONOS) data. The 90-day mortality was compared between MELD and MELD3.0 using the C-index in 2,353 eligible patients registered for liver transplantation. Patient numbers and outcomes were compared based on changes in KONOS-MELD categorization using MELD3.0. Possible gains in MELD points and reduced waitlist mortality were analyzed.
resultsMELD3.0 performed better than MELD (C-index 0.893 for MELD3.0 vs. 0.889 for MELD). When stratified according to the KONOS-MELD categories, 15.9% of the total patients and 35.2% of the deceased patients were up-categorized using MELD3.0 versus MELD categories. The mean gain of MELD points was higher in women (2.6 ± 2.1) than men (2.1 ± 1.9,
conclusionMELD3.0 could predict better waitlist mortality than MELD; however, the merit for women and patients with severe ascites is uncertain, and reduced waitlist mortality from implementing MELD3.0 is limited in regions suffering from organ shortage, as in Korea.
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.