ArticleTransplantation direct2024
Post-Liver Transplant Outcomes: A Comparative Study of 6 Predictive Models.
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.
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.
- Survival Outcomes of Liver Transplantation Amid Rising Recipient and Donor Risk Profiles.Clinical transplantation · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.