Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40629399›Full record

ReviewBMC medicine2025

The unwell patient with advanced chronic liver disease: when to use each score?

Oliver Moore, Wai-See Ma, Scott Read, Jacob George, Golo Ahlenstiel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Oliver MooreBlacktown Clinical School, School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Blacktown, NSW, Australia.
Wai-See MaBlacktown Clinical School, School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Blacktown, NSW, Australia.
Scott ReadBlacktown Clinical School, School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Blacktown, NSW, Australia.
Jacob GeorgeStorr Liver Centre, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW, Australia.
Golo AhlenstielBlacktown Clinical School, School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Blacktown, NSW, Australia. g.ahlenstiel@westernsydney.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrognostication in chronic liver disease and the implementation of appropriate scoring systems is difficult given the variety of clinical manifestations. It is important to understand the limitations of each scoring system as well as the context and patient group from which it was developed to allow appropriate application. This review seeks to explore the optimal clinical uses of different predictive scores developed for compensated and decompensated chronic liver disease, acute on chronic liver failure, and hepatocellular carcinoma. We will also review future areas of research for each score and current gaps in the literature. MAIN BODY: The Child-Pugh score is the pre-eminent prediction score for liver disease that was developed through empiric selection of relevant variables. It is useful for selection of patients for surgical resection of hepatocellular carcinoma but is inferior to other scores for other clinically relevant endpoints such as survival in acute decompensations. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and subsequent variants (MELD-Na, MELD 3.0) were developed to predict mortality following elective transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) insertion. An alternative is the Frieberg Index of Post-TIPS Survival (FIPS) score, which has been externally validated for TIPS populations. Organ allocation for liver transplantation is also currently prioritised using the MELD score, with the MELD 3.0 reducing waitlist gender discrepancies. The Chronic Liver Failure Consortium (CLIF-C) acute decompensation (AD) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) scores are used for predicting mortality in cirrhotic patients with acute decompensation of liver disease and acute-on-chronic liver failure, respectively. Both scores were developed from retrospective analyses of an observational European cohort with external validation. Understanding of ACLF presentation of advanced liver disease remains in the preliminary stages. Improving collective understanding is important to optimise prognostication. The albumin-bilirubin score is a non-invasive predictor of survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Incorporating artificial intelligence to personalise predictive algorithms may provide the most effective prognostication for all clinical phenotypes.

conclusionWe summarised key prognostic scores used in advanced liver disease and make recommendations for the optimal uses. Nuances in the development and implementation of each are discussed to help guide effective use.

Indexed as

End Stage Liver DiseaseLiver DiseasesSeverity of Illness IndexAcute-On-Chronic Liver FailureCarcinoma, HepatocellularHumansLiver NeoplasmsPrognosisACLFChild–PughCirrhosisHepatocellular carcinomaLiverMELDTIPS

Identifiers

PMID40629399
PMCPMC12239287

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.