ArticleCureus2025
Racial Disparities in Outcomes After Liver Transplantation.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Racial disparities in liver transplant outcomes remain an area of concern despite advancements in organ allocation and post-transplant care. This retrospective cohort study analyzed adult liver transplant recipients from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry between 1988 and 2021 to evaluate differences in graft and patient survival between African American (AA) and Caucasian American (CA) recipients. After excluding non-Black and non-White individuals and pediatric cases, a 3:1 matched cohort was created using propensity-type matching for age, sex, body mass index, and ABO type, resulting in 50,584 patients (13,421 AA and 40,263 CA). Median graft survival was significantly lower in AAs compared to CAs (1,466 vs. 1,787 days, p < 0.0001), as was median patient survival (1,480 vs. 1,815 days, p < 0.0001). Graft failure rates at one year were 2,325/12,708 (18.3%) for AA vs. 5,884/37,762 (15.6%) for CA (Chi² = 50.87, df = 1, V = 0.026, p < 0.0001); at five years, 4,326/10,323 (41.9%) vs. 10,172/30,179 (33.7%), respectively (Chi² = 218.35, V = 0.060, p < 0.0001). Similarly, mortality at five years was 3,516/9,152 (38.4%) for AA vs. 8,232/26,291 (31.3%) for CA (Chi² = 154.41, V = 0.066, p < 0.0001). AAs also had higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores at listing and transplant and were more likely to be hospitalized or in the ICU at the time of transplant. Insurance coverage differed significantly, with AAs more likely to have public insurance (6,031/12,739, 47.3% vs. 13,055/36,504, 35.8%, p < 0.0001). These findings suggest that AA liver transplant recipients experience significantly worse outcomes, likely due to a combination of advanced disease at presentation and socioeconomic disparities.
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.