ArticleHepatology (Baltimore, Md.)2026
Sex and body size disparities under MELD 3.0: Evaluation of persisting gaps in liver transplant access.
Article in Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.), 2026. 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
- Anatomical Size Disparities in Liver Transplantation: Imaging-Derived Abdominal Dimensions and Their Association With Waitlist Outcomes.Clinical transplantation · 2026Article
- From sex to size: Rethinking fairness in liver transplantation.Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) · 2026Article
- Reply to: Sex for the purposes of MELD 3.0 calculation: When this differs from birth sex and implications for policy.Hepatology communications · 2026Article
- Sex Differences in Alloimmunity and Other Immunological Considerations in Organ Transplantation.Immunological reviews · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe July 2023 implementation of MELD3.0 aimed to address longstanding sex disparities in liver transplant access. However, its impact has been understudied.
methodsWe analyzed US transplant registry data (February 4, 2020-September 30, 2024) among adult candidates for liver transplant. Using a difference-in-differences design, we assessed the impact of MELD3.0 during immediate and 3-month postimplementation ("burn-in") periods on receipt of (1) a top 5 organ offer or (2) transplant. Poisson and logistic models estimated the offer and transplant probabilities. Mediation and subgroup analyses by height were also conducted.
resultsWe analyzed 9,952,473 person-day observations from 60,159 candidates for liver transplant. Following MELD3.0, women had greater relative increases in top 5 organ offer rates (rate ratio: 1.14 1.25 1.37 at implementation; rate ratio: 1.11 1.16 1.22 at 3 mo). Pre-MELD3.0, transplant rates were lower for women than men (OR: 0.84 0.86 0.89 ). Post policy, women had greater relative improvements in transplant access than men (OR: 1.16 1.36 1.60 at implementation; OR: 1.09 1.18 1.29 at 3 mo), but this advantage diminished over time, with the model-estimated improvement for women relative to men declining to OR 0.81 by the study end. In mediation analysis, adjustment for height eliminated the difference in transplant rates by sex (OR: 0.98 1.01 1.05 ). Among taller (≥166 cm) candidates, baseline differences by sex persisted (OR: 0.89 0.92 0.96 ), but not in the shorter (<166 cm) group (OR: 0.92 0.97 1.03 ). Post policy, the benefit for women was more pronounced in shorter candidates (OR: 1.19 1.47 1.83 ).
conclusionsMELD3.0 led to early gains in transplant access for women, though this effect diminished over time and differences by sex mediated by body size persisted.
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.