ReviewFrontiers in transplantation2026
Standardized evaluation protocols for deceased and living liver donors: a practical framework for emerging liver transplant programs.
Review in Frontiers in transplantation, 2026. 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.
- Risk Factors for Dysfunctional Liver Graft Response: A Case-Control Study.Nursing & health 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
Background: Liver transplantation (LT) remains the definitive therapy for end-stage liver disease. However, significant variability in infrastructure, policy, and clinical practice continues to influence the implementation of deceased donor (DDLT) and living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) worldwide, particularly across emerging and expanding programs. Methods: This narrative review synthesizes contemporary guidelines, expert consensus documents, and high-impact clinical studies on donor evaluation. It presents a standardized and pragmatic framework for both DDLT and LDLT, integrating medical, radiologic, ethical, and psychosocial domains. Protocols are designed to be evidence-based, reproducible, and aligned with international standards. Key content and findings: In DDLT, optimal donor management, accurate neurological determination of death, and comprehensive infectious disease screening are essential for graft viability. In LDLT, meticulous psychosocial and anatomical assessments remain critical to donor safety. Advances such as machine perfusion, desensitization protocols, and expanded donor criteria have improved outcomes and broadened transplant opportunities. The proposed framework consolidates global best practices to support program consistency and quality assurance. Conclusions: This review provides a comprehensive and practical approach to donor evaluation in LT, promoting harmonization of practices across diverse healthcare systems. Its adoption may enhance donor safety, optimize graft utilization, and support the sustainable growth of both DDLT and LDLT programs worldwide.
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.