ArticleTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2025
Staged preoperative evaluation of potential living donors for liver transplantation.
Article in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 2025. 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.
- Advanced imaging techniques at the crossroads of cholangiocarcinoma and liver transplantation: Can we bridge the gap?World journal of gastrointestinal 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Living donor selection is crucial to minimize postoperative donor complications and to improve recipient outcomes. This study describes the selection process and evaluates the reasons for discarding potential donors in our living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) program. Methods: Retrospective descriptive analysis from all potential donors evaluated in our LDLT program between April 2018 and July 2021. Selection criteria included age 18-60 years old, no significant medical or mental comorbidities, ABO and anatomical suitability. Results: A total of 231 potential donors were evaluated. Mean age was 37.2±11.1 years and male gender in 51.9%. One hundred and one potential donors (43.7%) did not complete the evaluation, mainly because of availability of a deceased donor during the process (n=32; 13.9%), ABO incompatibility (n=14; 6.1%), progression or death of the recipient (n=20; 8.7%). Of the 130 who completed their radiological evaluation, 55 (42.3%) were anatomically unsuitable, mainly due to small liver remnant size (n=25/130; 19.2%) and steatosis (n=17/130; 13.1%). Out of the 231 potential donors, 75 were accepted as adequate donors (32.5%) and 36 candidates underwent liver donation (15.6%). Conclusions: Only one-third of all potential donors are suitable for donation and half of them will undergo surgery. Given that in our setting computed tomography (CT) has a lower cost than magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), starting with a CT scan decreases the high cost of further workup of donors that are not anatomically suitable for living liver donation.
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.