ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024
Effect of donor
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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, 2 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
13 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Several genetic variants are associated with chronic liver disease. The role of these variants in outcomes after liver transplantation (LT) is uncertain. The aim of this study was to determine if donor genotype at risk-associated variants in Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, data on 2346 adults who underwent first-time LT between January 1, 1999 and June 30, 2020 and who had donor DNA samples available at five large Transplant Immunology Laboratories in Texas, USA, were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). Duplicates, patients with insufficient donor DNA for genotyping, those who were <18 years of age at the time of transplant, had had a previous transplant or had missing genotype data were excluded. The primary outcomes were patient and graft survival after LT. The association between donor genotype and post-LT survival was examined using Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Findings: Median age of LT recipients was 57 [interquartile range (IQR), 50-62] years; 837 (35.7%) were women; 1362 (58.1%) White, 713 (30.4%) Hispanic, 182 (7.8%) Black/African-American. Median follow-up time was 3.95 years. Post-LT survival was not affected by donor Interpretation: Donor Funding: The National Institutes of Health and American Society of Transplant Surgeons Collaborative Scientist Grant.
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.