ArticleYonsei medical journal2023
The Effect of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease 3.0 on Disparities between Patients with and without Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Korea.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 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.
- Validation of MELD 3.0 and ReMELD-Na scoring systems: a German clinical cohort study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- The Development and Appraisal of MELD 3.0 in Liver Diseases: Good Things Never Come Easy.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2025Review
- Comparison between Nivolumab and Regorafenib as Second-line Systemic Therapies after Sorafenib Failure in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Yonsei medical journal · 2024Article
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
purposeThe model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) 3.0 has recently been suggested for determining liver allocation. We aimed to apply MELD 3.0 to a Korean population and to discover differences between patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study is a retrospective study of 2203 patients diagnosed with liver cirrhosis at Severance Hospital between 2016-2022. Harrell's concordance index was used to validate the ability of MELD scores to predict 90-day survival.
resultsDuring a mean follow-up of 12.9 months, 90-day survival was 61.9% in all patients, 50.4% in the HCC patients, and 74.8% in the non-HCC patients. Within the HCC patients, the concordance index for patients on the waitlist was 0.653 using MELD, which increased to 0.753 using MELD 3.0. Among waitlisted patients, the 90-day survival of HCC patients was worse than that of non-HCC patients with MELD scores of 31-37 only (69.7% vs. 30.0%,
conclusionMELD 3.0 predicted 90-day survival of the HCC patients more accurately than original MELD score; however, the disparity between HCC and non-HCC patients increased, particularly in patients with MELD scores of 21-30. Therefore, a novel exception score is needed or the current exception score system should be modified.
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.