ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
Validation of MELD 3.0 and ReMELD-Na scoring systems: a German clinical cohort study.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 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.
- [Predictors of short-term antimicrobial treatment outcomes in patients with liver failure complicated by spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: A retrospective study].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, introduced in 2002, has since been refined. MELD 3.0, launched in 2023 in the United States, improves mortality prediction by incorporating sex and albumin. Since March 2025, Germany started to use reMELD-Na to improve prioritization of patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation (LT). This study compares the performance of original MELD, MELD-Na, MELD 3.0 with and without albumin, and reMELD-Na for patients waitlisted for LT in a large German transplant center.
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included 206 listed patients from 2017 to 2021 for LT. Reclassification patterns along with predictive accuracy for three-month survival and overall survival (OS) of five different MELD scores were assessed using Harrell's c-index and integrated area under the curve (iAUC).
resultsOver a median follow-up of 33.9 months, 100 patients (51.5%) underwent LT, with a post-transplant survival rate of 70%. Thirty-eight patients (18.4%) received LT and sixteen patients died within the first three months after listing. ReMELD-Na and MELD 3.0 without albumin demonstrated the highest discrimination for three-month survival (c-index 0.848 and 0.827, respectively). Original MELD showed the poorest discrimination. MELD 3.0 without albumin showed the best overall performance in predicting OS (c-index 0.827) in males, while reMELD-Na performed best in females (c-index 0.705). Females with higher original MELD scores tended to receive even higher scores with MELD 3.0.
conclusionThis is the first German study to validate reMELD-Na and MELD 3.0, showing superior predictive performance over original MELD. MELD 3.0 may better reflect disease severity in women at advanced stages due to more upward reclassification.
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.