The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Randomized controlled study of TIPS versus paracentesis plus albumin in cirrhosis with severe ascites
Open accessAbstract
The transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has been shown to be effective in the control of refractory or recidivant ascites. However, the effect of TIPS on survival as compared with that of large-volume paracentesis plus albumin is uncertain. A multicenter, prospective, clinical trial was performed in 66 patients with cirrhosis and refractory or recidivant ascites (16 Child-Turcotte-Pugh class B and 50 Child-Turcotte-Pugh class C) randomly assigned to treatment with TIPS (n = 33) or with large-volume paracentesis plus human albumin (n = 33). The primary endpoint was survival without liver transplantation. Secondary endpoints were treatment failure, rehospitalization, and occurrence of complications. Thirteen patients treated with TIPS and 20 patients treated with paracentesis died during the study period, 4 patients in each group underwent liver transplantation. The probability of survival without transplantation was 77% at 1 year and 59% at 2 years in the TIPS group as compared with 52% and 29% in the paracentesis group (P = .021). In a multivariate analysis, treatment with paracentesis and higher MELD score showed to independently predict death. Treatment failure was more frequent in patients assigned to paracentesis, whereas severe episodes of hepatic encephalopathy occurred more frequently in patients assigned to TIPS. The number and duration of rehospitalizations were similar in the two groups. In conclusion, compared to large-volume paracentesis plus albumin, TIPS improves survival without liver transplantation in patients with refractory or recidivant ascites. (Hepatology 2004;40:629-635.)
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)
Kamath, P. S., & Kim, R. W. (2007) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.21563 · Cited by 1,674
Guidelines on the management of ascites in cirrhosis
Aithal, G. P., Palaniyappan, N., China, L., Härmälä, S., Macken, L., Ryan, J. M., Wilkes, E. A., Moore, K., Leithead, J. A., Hayes, P. C., et al. (2021) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321790 · Cited by 680
Bureau, C., Thabut, D., Oberti, F., Dharancy, S., Carbonell, N., Bouvier, A., Mathurin, P., Otal, P., Cabarrou, P., Péron, J. M., et al. (2017) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2016.09.016 · Cited by 452
CHOLONGITAS, E., PAPATHEODORIDIS, G. V., VANGELI, M., TERRENI, N., PATCH, D., & BURROUGHS, A. K. (2005) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02691.x · Cited by 420
Solà, E., Pose, E., Campion, D., Piano, S., Roux, O., Simon-Talero, M., Uschner, F., de Wit, K., Zaccherini, G., Alessandria, C., et al. (2021) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2020.08.009 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Salerno, F., Merli, M., Riggio, O., Cazzaniga, M., Valeriano, V., Pozzi, M., Nicolini, A., & Salvatori, F.
- Venue
- Hepatology
- Published
- 2004-09
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 629-635
- ISSN
- 0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2015839847
- Cited by
- 353
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Randomized controlled study of TIPS versus paracentesis plus albumin in cirrhosis with severe ascites. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/hep.20364
- The paper
- Salerno, F., Merli, M., Riggio, O., Cazzaniga, M., Valeriano, V., Pozzi, M., Nicolini, A., & Salvatori, F. (2004). Randomized controlled study of TIPS versus paracentesis plus albumin in cirrhosis with severe ascites. Hepatology. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.20364
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.