Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39563723›Full record

ArticleTransplantation direct2024

Post-Liver Transplant Outcomes: A Comparative Study of 6 Predictive Models.

Christof Kaltenmeier, Eishan Ashwat, Hao Liu, Charbel Elias, Amaan Rahman, Jason Mail-Anthony, Isabel Neckermann, Stalin Dharmayan, Andrew Crane, Godwin Packiaraj and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transplantation direct, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Christof KaltenmeierDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Eishan AshwatDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Hao LiuDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Charbel EliasDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Amaan RahmanDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Jason Mail-AnthonyDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Isabel NeckermannDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Stalin DharmayanDepartment of Surgery, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Andrew CraneDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Godwin PackiarajDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Subhashini AylooDepartment of Surgery, Brown University, Providence, RI.
Armando GanozaDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Vikraman GunabushanamDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Michele MolinariDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9763-6253

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: We compared the performance of the Liver Transplant Risk Score (LTRS) with the survival outcomes following liver transplantation (SOFT), pretransplant SOFT (P-SOFT), Balance of Risk Score (BAR), donor-age and model for end-stage liver disease (D-MELD), and Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Risk Prediction Score (ORPS) for the prediction of 90-d mortality, 1-y mortality, and 5-y survival after first-time liver transplantation (LT). Methods: A retrospective analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was conducted using data collected between 2002 and 2021. Results: A total of 82 696 adult LT recipients with a median age of 56 y were included. The area under the curve for 90-d mortality were 0.61, 0.66, 0.65, 0.61, 0.58, and 0.56 for the LTRS, SOFT, P-SOFT, BAR, D-MELD, and ORPS, respectively (all pairwise comparisons: Conclusions: None of the predictive models demonstrated sufficient precision to reliably identify LT recipients who died within 90 d and 1 y after LT. However, all models exhibited strong capabilities in perioperative risk stratification. Notably, the P-SOFT and LTRS models, the 2 models that can be calculated using only preoperative data, proved to be valuable tools for identifying candidates at a significant risk of poor outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID39563723
PMCPMC11576004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.