SynthesisEuropean journal of gastroenterology & hepatology2026
Comparing nurse-assisted outpatient follow-up with standard care among patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nurse-assisted care has been shown to improve outcomes in these patients when compared with standard care. This study aimed to compare nurse-assisted outpatient follow-up with standard care in patients with decompensated liver failure. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing specialized or nurse-assisted care with standard care in patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis. Outcomes of interest were mortality, 30-day readmission, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, Child-Pugh score, and mean number of hospital stays. Evaluations were reported as risk ratios and mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using weighted random-effects models. The analysis included 668 patients from seven studies (three RCTs and four observational studies). Compared with standard care, nursing and multidisciplinary care showed no significant reduction in mortality (risk ratio: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.53-1.16, P = 0.12, I ² = 69%); however, upon subgroup analysis according to type of study significant reduction was noted among RCTs [risk ratio: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.30-0.94, P = 0.03, I ² = 0%). Meta-analysis also showed a significant reduction in 30-day readmission rates (risk ratio: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.25-0.59, P < 0.0001, I ²=0%), which were consistent upon subgroup analysis. There was no significant difference in Child-Pugh score (mean difference: 0.07, 95% CI: -0.79 to 0.93, P = 0.83, I ² = 0%), MELD score (mean difference: 0.17, 95% CI: -1.33 to 1.67, P = 0.82, I ² = 0%) and mean difference in number of hospital stay (mean difference: -1.59, 95% CI: -5.68 to 2.51, P = 0.45, I ² = 89%). Results were consistent upon subgroup analysis except for the mean number of hospital stays, which showed a significant reduction among observational studies (mean difference: -4.20, 95% CI: -8.18 to -0.22, P = 0.04).
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.