ArticleJHEP reports : innovation in hepatology2026
Comparative performance of ReMELD-Na, MELD 3.0 and established scores after TIPS for refractory ascites: A multicenter study.
Article in JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply to: "Performance of reMELD-Na as a predictor of short-term mortality in patients with cirrhosis and ascites": Aiming at a Moving Target: ReMELD-Na Before and After Portal Decompression.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2026Article
- Performance of reMELD-Na as a predictor of short-term mortality in patients with cirrhosis and ascites.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 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
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsReMELD-Na and MELD 3.0 are newly introduced prognostic scores for liver graft allocation, but their ability to predict outcomes after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for refractory ascites in Western populations remains uncertain. This study compared the prognostic performance of ReMELD-Na and MELD 3.0 with FIPS, MELD-Na, and MELD.
methodsIn this multicenter retrospective study, 1,621 patients with cirrhosis undergoing TIPS for refractory ascites at eight German centers (January 2004-June 2024) were analyzed. Outcomes were the composite of death or liver transplantation (LTx) within 90 days (primary endpoint) and one year (secondary endpoint) after TIPS. Prognostic performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), including sex-stratified analyses, and compared using DeLong's test. High-risk groups (above the 85th percentile for the 90-day endpoint and the 75th percentile for the 1-year endpoint) were compared with non-high-risk groups using Kaplan-Meier analysis, scatter plots, and descriptive score-vs.-score spline smoothing.
resultsAll scores showed limited predictive performance, with AUROC values ranging from 0.635 to 0.675 for the 90-day outcome and from 0.644 to 0.672 for the 1-year outcome. Female patients demonstrated higher AUROC values, reaching 0.714 for FIPS at 90 days. ReMELD-Na showed significantly lower AUROC values than FIPS, MELD 3.0, and MELD-Na. In contrast, MELD 3.0 demonstrated AUROC values comparable to those of the other scores. All models identified high-risk groups with increased rates of death and LTx.
conclusionsAfter TIPS for refractory ascites, all scores exhibited limited prognostic performance, but adequately distinguished high- and low-risk patients. MELD 3.0 performed comparably to established models, while ReMELD-Na was inferior to FIPS, MELD 3.0, and MELD-Na. Higher AUROC values in women suggest sex-specific differences and highlight the need for sex-sensitive prognostic tools. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Accurate prediction of post-TIPS outcomes is essential to optimize management strategies for patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites. In this large multicenter study, MELD 3.0 demonstrated prognostic performance comparable to established models, whereas ReMELD-Na - recently implemented for liver allocation in the Eurotransplant region - showed inferior predictive performance, raising concerns about its applicability in this setting. These results are particularly relevant as existing models may inadequately capture post-TIPS risk, especially in male patients. Collectively, the findings advocate for a cautious application of ReMELD-Na in clinical decision-making and emphasize the need to develop sex-sensitive, multidimensional prognostic tools to improve patient selection and surveillance.
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.