ArticleHepatology communications2024
Validation of MELD3.0 in 2 centers from different continents.
Article in Hepatology communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply: Validation of MELD 3.0 in 2 centers from different continents.Hepatology communications · 2026Article
- MELD 3.i: A Bayesian framework for updating the model for end-stage liver disease score.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2025Article
- Sex-based disparities in liver transplantation: Evidence from a nationwide Italian cohort.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2025Article
- Predicting Mortality and Cirrhosis-Related Complications with MELD3.0: A Multicenter Cohort Analysis.Gut and liver · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMELD3.0 has been proposed to stratify patients on the liver transplant waiting list (WL) to reduce the historical disadvantage of women in accessing liver transplant. Our aim was to validate MELD3.0 in 2 unique populations.
methodsThis study is a 2-center retrospective cohort study from Toronto, Canada, and Valencia, Spain, of all adults added to the liver transplant WL between 2015 and 2019. Listing indications whose short-term survival outcome is not adequately captured by the MELD score were excluded. All patients analyzed had a minimum follow-up of 3 months after inclusion in the WL.
resultsSix hundred nineteen patients were included; 61% were male, with a mean age of 56 years. Mean MELD at inclusion was 18.00 ± 6.88, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Sodium (MELDNa) 19.78 ± 7.00, and MELD3.0 20.25 ± 7.22. AUC to predict 90-day mortality on the WL was 0.879 (95% CI: 0.820, 0.939) for MELD, 0.921 (95% CI: 0.876, 0.967) for MELDNa, and 0.930 (95% CI: 0.888, 0.973) for MELD3.0. MELDNa and MELD3.0 were better predictors than MELD (p = 0.055 and p = 0.024, respectively), but MELD3.0 was not statistically superior to MELDNa (p = 0.144). The same was true when stratified by sex, although the difference between MELD3.0 and MELD was only significant for women (p = 0.032), while no statistical significance was found in either sex when compared with MELDNa. In women, AUC was 0.835 (95% CI: 0.744, 0.926) for MELD, 0.873 (95% CI: 0.785, 0.961) for MELDNa, and 0.886 (95% CI: 0.803, 0.970) for MELD3.0; differences for the comparison between AUC in women versus men for all 3 scores were nonsignificant. Compared to MELD, MELD3.0 was able to reclassify 146 patients (24%), the majority of whom belonged to the MELD 10-19 interval. Compared to MELDNa, it reclassified 68 patients (11%), most of them in the MELDNa 20-29 category.
conclusionsMELD3.0 has been validated in centers with significant heterogeneity and offers the highest mortality prediction for women on the WL without disadvantaging men. However, in these cohorts, it was not superior to MELDNa.
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.