Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 379

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Artificial and Bioartificial Support Systems for Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: A Systematic Review

Kjaergard, Lise L., Liu, Jianping, Als-Nielsen, Bodil, Gluud, Christian·2003·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Artificial and bioartificial support systems may provide a "bridge" for patients with severe liver disease to recovery or transplantation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of artificial and bioartificial support systems for acute and acute-on-chronic liver failure. DATA SOURCES: Randomized trials on any support system vs standard medical therapy were included irrespective of publication status or language. Nonrandomized studies were included in explorative analyses. Trials were identified through electronic searches (Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Chinese Medical Database), bibliographies, and contact with experts. Searches were conducted of the entire databases through September 2002. STUDY SELECTION: Of 528 references identified, 12 randomized trials with 483 patients were included. Eight nonrandomized studies were included in explorative analyses. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted and trial quality was assessed independently by 3 reviewers (L.L.K., J.L., B.A-N.). The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. Results were combined on the risk ratio (RR) scale. Random-effects models were used. Sources of heterogeneity were explored through meta-regression and stratified meta-analyses. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 12 trials included, 10 assessed artificial systems for acute or acute-on-chronic liver failure and 2 assessed bioartificial systems for acute liver failure. Overall, support systems had no significant effect on mortality compared with standard medical therapy (RR, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.12). Meta-regression indicated that the effect of support systems depended on the type of liver failure (P =.03). In stratified meta-analyses, support systems appeared to reduce mortality by 33% in acute-on-chronic liver failure (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.90), but not in acute liver failure (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.29). Compared with randomized trials, nonrandomized studies produced significantly larger estimates of intervention effects (P =.01). CONCLUSION: This review suggests that artificial support systems reduce mortality in acute-on-chronic liver failure compared with standard medical therapy. Artificial and bioartificial support systems did not appear to affect mortality in acute liver failure.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.289.2.217

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Cited by

See all 379

Metadata

Authors
Kjaergard, L. L., Liu, J., Als-Nielsen, B., & Gluud, C.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2003-01-08
Volume
289
Issue
2
Pages
217
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1995636701
Cited by
379
References
31
FWCI
19.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Artificial and Bioartificial Support Systems for Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.289.2.217
The paper
Kjaergard, L. L., Liu, J., Als-Nielsen, B., & Gluud, C. (2003). Artificial and Bioartificial Support Systems for Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: A Systematic Review. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.2.217

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.