Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37762738›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023

Comparing High- and Low-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Living-Donor Liver Transplantation to Determine Clinical Efficacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (CHALICE Study).

Kumar Jayant, Thomas G Cotter, Isabella Reccia, Francesco Virdis, Mauro Podda, Nikolaos Machairas, Ramesh P Arasaradnam, Diego di Sabato, John C LaMattina, Rolf N Barth and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Kumar JayantDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College London, London W12 0TS, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0490-7323
Thomas G CotterDivision of Digestive and Liver Diseases, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA.
Isabella RecciaGeneral Surgery and Oncologic Unit, Policlinico ponte San Pietro, 24036 Bergamo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1194-8828
Francesco VirdisDipartimento DEA-EAS Ospedale Niguarda Ca' Granda Milano, 20162 Milano, Italy.
Mauro PoddaDepartment of Surgery, Calgiari University Hospital, 09121 Calgiari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9941-0883
Nikolaos Machairas2nd Department of Propaedwutic Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0003-3239-3905
Ramesh P ArasaradnamWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7H, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2231-3062
Diego di SabatoThe Transplantation Institute, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
John C LaMattinaThe Transplantation Institute, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
Rolf N BarthThe Transplantation Institute, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6770-5473
Piotr WitkowskiThe Transplantation Institute, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4459-6673
John J FungThe Transplantation Institute, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3038-0441
University of Chicago · USAzienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda · ITHammersmith Hospital · GBNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GROspedale San Pietro Fatebenefratelli · ITSouthwestern Medical Center · USUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionVarious studies have demonstrated that low-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) recipients have better outcomes with improved patient survival than deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) recipients. LDLT recipients gain the most from being transplanted at MELD <25-30; however, some existing data have outlined that LDLT may provide equivalent outcomes in high-MELD and low-MELD patients, although the term "high" MELD is arbitrarily defined in the literature and various cut-off scores are outlined between 20 and 30, although most commonly, the dividing threshold is 25. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare LDLT in high-MELD with that in low-MELD recipients to determine patient survival and graft survival, as well as perioperative and postoperative complications.

methodsFollowing PROSPERO registration CRD-42021261501, a systematic database search was conducted for the published literature between 1990 and 2021 and yielded a total of 10 studies with 2183 LT recipients; 490 were HM-LDLT recipients and 1693 were LM-LDLT recipients.

resultsBoth groups had comparable mortality at 1, 3 and 5 years post-transplant (5-year HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79-1.79;

conclusionsThe high-MELD LDLT group had similar patient and graft survival and morbidities to the low-MELD LDLT group, despite being at higher risk for pulmonary infection, abdominal fluid collection and prolonged ICU stay. The data, primarily sourced from high-volume Asian centers, underscore the feasibility of living donations for liver allografts in high-MELD patients. Given the rising demand for liver allografts, it is sensible to incorporate these insights into U.S. transplant practices.

Indexed as

high MELDliver transplantliving donorliving donor liver transplant (LDLT)

Identifiers

PMID37762738
PMCPMC10531849
OpenAlexW4386485241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.