ArticleJHEP reports : innovation in hepatology2025
Sex-based disparities in liver transplantation: Evidence from a nationwide Italian cohort.
Article in JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Addressing gender-based disparities in liver transplantation: A global analysis of surgical access and donor organ allocation.World journal of transplantation · 2026Article
- Sex and body size disparities under MELD 3.0: Evaluation of persisting gaps in liver transplant access.Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) · 2026Article
- Impact of Diverse Clinical Characteristics on Survival Benefit of Liver Transplantation.Journal of transplantation · 2026Article
- Running towards liver transplantation.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2025Article
- Sex disparities in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: long-term outcomes and recurrence predictors.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & Aims: Although sex-based disparities in the liver transplantation (LT) setting have been acknowledged for several years, particularly by studies conducted in the USA, data from European countries are scarce. Methods: We conducted a nationwide, retrospective, observational study on candidates identified for LT in Italy between January 2017 and December 2021 using national registry data with follow-up until June 2023. The primary aim was to assess sex-based differences in LT access, analyzing delisting, retransplantation, and mortality rates. Patients were monitored from waitlist admission to transplant, removal, or death, with competing risks modeled (Fine and Gray) multivariable analysis. Survival outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, time-dependent Cox models, and stratified log-rank tests. Results: In total, 7,563 patients were included in the analysis, 5,575 (73.7%) of whom were men. Men had higher 1- and 2-year probabilities of undergoing LT compared with women for both liver cirrhosis (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.26, Conclusions: In this large Italian cohort, female standard allocation patients appeared to be at a disadvantage compared with men, because they received LT less frequently, but with similar post-LT outcomes. Impact and implications: Although sex-based disparities in the LT setting have been acknowledged for several years, particularly in studies conducted in the USA, few data are available in Europe. Our study provides an exhaustive overview regarding the disadvantage facing women outside the USA in accessing LT. By detailing these differences, it provides solid arguments for developing equitable health policy. Given that these differences are affected by the national scenario, having local data is crucial for defining possible targeted actions.
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.