ArticleThe Korean journal of internal medicine2024
Model for end-stage liver disease-3.0 vs. model for end-stage liver disease-sodium: mortality prediction in Korea.
Article in The Korean journal of internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construction and validation of a prediction model for graft failure in pediatric liver transplant recipients based on the APRI-ALBI score: a retrospective study of 289 cases.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Comparison of Mortality Prediction Between the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-3.0 (MELD-3.0) and the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Lactate (MELD-La) in Korean Patients with Liver Cirrhosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Preliminary experience of combined dual plasma molecular adsorption system and plasma exchange in pediatric acute liver failure: a retrospective case series.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- The Development and Appraisal of MELD 3.0 in Liver Diseases: Good Things Never Come Easy.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2025Review
- Validation of gender-equity model for liver allocation (GEMA) and its sodium variant (GEMA-Na) in candidates for liver transplantation.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
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
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) serves as an indicator for short-term mortality among patients diagnosed with liver cirrhosis (LC) and is used to prioritize patients for liver transplantation. In 2021, the updated version of MELD, MELD-3.0, was introduced to improve the accuracy of the mortality prediction of MELD. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the efficacy of MELD 3.0 and MELD-Na in predicting mortality among Korean patients with LC.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted using the medical records of patients diagnosed with LC who were admitted to Konkuk University Hospital From 2011 to 2021. The study calculated the predictive values of MELD-Na and MELD-3.0 for 3- and 6-months mortality using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) and compared the results using the DeLong test.
resultsOf the 3,034 patients enrolled in the study, 339 (11.2%) died within 3 months and 421 (14.4%) died within 6 months. The AUROCs values for predicting 3 months mortality were 0.846 for MELD-Na and 0.851 for MELD-3.0. The corresponding AUROC values for predicting 6 months mortality were 0.843 for MELD-Na and 0.848 for MELD-3.0. MELD-3.0 exhibited better discrimination ability than MELD-Na for both 3 (p = 0.03) and 6 months mortality (p = 0.01).
conclusionOur study found a significant difference between the performance of MELD-3.0 and MELD-Na in Korean patients with LC.
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.