The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Results of the first year of the new liver allocation plan
Open accessAbstract
Liver allocation policy in the U.S. was recently changed to a continuous disease severity scale with minimal weight given to time waiting in an effort to better prioritize deceased donor liver transplant candidates. We compared rates of waiting list registrations, removals, transplants, and deaths during the year prior to implementation of the new liver allocation policy (2/27/01-2/26/02, Era 1) with the first year’s experience (2/27/02-2/26/03, Era 2) under this new policy. Rates were adjusted for 1,000 patient years on the waiting list and compared using z-tests. A 1-sided test was used to compare death rates; 2-sided tests were used to compare transplant rates. Overall and subgroup analyses were performed for demographic, geographic, and medical strata. In Era 2, we observed a 12% reduction in new liver transplant waiting list registrations, with the largest reductions seen in new registrants with low MELD/PELD scores. In Era 2, there was a 3.5% reduction in waiting list death rate (P = .076) and a 10.2% increase in cadaveric transplants (P < .001). The reduction in waiting list mortality and increase in transplantation rates were evenly distributed across all demographic and medical strata, with some variation across geographic variables. Early patient and graft survival after deceased donor liver transplantation remains unchanged. In conclusion, by eliminating the categorical waiting list prioritization system that emphasized time waiting, the new system has been associated with reduced registrations and improved transplantation rates without increased mortality rates for individual groups of waiting candidates or changes in early transplant survival rates. (Liver Transpl 2004;10:7-15.)
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
Cites
Malinchoc, M., Kamath, P. S., Gordon, F. D., Peine, C. J., Rank, J., & ter Borg, P. C. J. (2000) · Hepatology · doi:10.1053/he.2000.5852 · Cited by 2,893
Cited by
Olthoff, K. M., Kulik, L., Samstein, B., Kaminski, M., Abecassis, M., Emond, J., Shaked, A., & Christie, J. D. (2010) · Liver Transplantation · doi:10.1002/lt.22091 · Cited by 1,256
AASLD practice guidelines: Evaluation of the patient for liver transplantation†
Murray, K. F., & Carithers, R. L. (2005) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.20704 · Cited by 939
Rana, A., Hardy, M. A., Halazun, K. J., Woodland, D. C., Ratner, L. E., Samstein, B., Guarrera, J. V., Brown, R. S., & Emond, J. C. (2008) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02400.x · Cited by 459
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
Review article: the management of hepatocellular carcinoma
CABRERA, R., & NELSON, D. R. (2010) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04200.x · Cited by 222
Metadata
- Authors
- Freeman, R. B., Wiesner, R. H., Edwards, E., Harper, A., Merion, R., & Wolfe, R.
- Venue
- Liver Transplantation
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7-15
- ISSN
- 1527-6465 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2129856587
- Cited by
- 434
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 41.50
- 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: Results of the first year of the new liver allocation plan. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/lt.20024
- The paper
- Freeman, R. B., Wiesner, R. H., Edwards, E., Harper, A., Merion, R., & Wolfe, R. (2004). Results of the first year of the new liver allocation plan. Liver Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.20024
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.