ArticleBJS open2024
Survival after live donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: propensity score-matched study.
Article in BJS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Outcomes of Living and Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- American perspectives for LDLT in 2024.Updates in surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor individuals with advanced liver disease, equipoise in outcomes between live donor liver transplant (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) is uncertain.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed using data extracted from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Adults who underwent first-time DDLT or LTDL in the United States between 2002 and 2020 were paired using propensity-score matching with 1:10 ratio without replacement. Patient and graft survival were compared using the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score for stratification.
resultsAfter propensity-score matching, 31 522 DDLT and 3854 LDLT recipients were included. For recipients with MELD scores ≤15, LDLT was associated with superior patient survival (HR = 0.92; 95% c.i. 0.76 to 0.96; P = 0.013). No significant differences in patient survival were observed for MELD scores between 16 and 30. Conversely, for patients with MELD scores >30, LDLT was associated with higher mortality (HR 2.57; 95% c.i. 1.35 to 4.62; P = 0.003). Graft survival was comparable between the two groups for MELD ≤15 and for MELD between 21 and 30. However, for MELD between 16 and 20 (HR = 1.15; 95% c.i. 1.00 to 1.33; P = 0.04) and MELD > 30 (HR = 2.85; 95% c.i. 1.65 to 4.91; P = 0.001), graft survival was considerably shorter after LDLT. Regardless of MELD scores, re-transplantation rate within the first year was significantly higher after LDLT.
conclusionsIn this large propensity score-matched study using national data, comparable patient survival was found between LDLT and DDLT in recipients with MELD scores between 16 and 30. Conversely, for patients with MELD > 30, LDLT was associated with worse outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of transplant selection for patients with high MELD scores.
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.