ArticleClinical transplantation2024
Detrimental impact of early biopsy-proven rejection in liver transplantation.
Article in Clinical transplantation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Existing literature offers conflicting conclusions about whether early acute cellular rejection influences long-term outcomes in liver transplantation. We retrospectively collected donor and recipient data on all adult, first-time liver transplants performed at a single center between 2008 and 2020. We divided this population into two cohorts based on the presence of early biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection (EBPR) within the first 90 days post-transplant and compared outcomes between the groups. There were 896 liver transplants that met inclusion criteria with 112 cases (12.5%) of EBPR. Recipients who developed EBPR had higher biochemical Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores (28 vs. 24, p < .01), but other donor and recipient characteristics were similar. Recipients with EBPR had similar overall survival compared to patients without EBPR (p = .09) but had decreased graft survival (p < .05). EBPR was also associated with decreased time to first episode of late (> 90 days post-transplant) rejection (p < .0001) and increased vulnerability to bacterial and viral infection (p < .05). In subgroup analysis of recipients with autoimmune indications for liver transplantation, EBPR had a more pronounced association with patient death (hazard ratio [HR] 3.9, p < .05) and graft loss (HR 4.0, p < .01). EBPR after liver transplant is associated with inferior graft survival, increased susceptibility to late rejections, and increased vulnerability to infection.
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.