ArticleGastro hep advances2022
Accounting for Liver Transplant in Acute Liver Failure Research.
Article in Gastro hep advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Simultaneous Co-transplantation for Highly Efficient Cell Therapy.Current stem cell research & therapy · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Aims: Acute liver failure (ALF) is a rare but serious disease with challenging clinical decisions, including the possibility of liver transplantation. Although there is interest in predicting who will need a transplant, that outcome is difficult to define as the decision to transplant includes many extraneous factors. The majority of research in this setting focuses on identifying factors that can provide guidance on a patient's likelihood of survival without a liver transplant. The question that arises is whether death and transplant should be combined as a poor outcome or should alternative approaches be used to account for transplant in this setting. Furthermore, does the approach to incorporating transplant information impact the accuracy of predicting survival. We aim to compare alternative analytic methods for the ALF setting to provide guidance to the clinical research community on how to handle transplant when the outcome of interest is survival without a transplant. Methods: Five analysis approaches are compared based on model performance using existing registry data from 2100 ALF patients: logistic regression with transplant as part of the outcome, logistic regression with transplant as a covariate, inverse probability weighting, survival analysis, and multiple imputation. Results: The various models exhibit comparable model fit with each providing advantages and challenges in implementation. Conclusion: There are alternative modeling approaches in the ALF setting, leaving researchers with multiple valid options for how to include transplant when examining factors that may influence transplant-free survival.
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.