The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Specific laboratory methodologies achieve higher model for endstage liver disease (MELD) scores for patients listed for liver transplantation
Abstract
Priority for liver transplantation is currently based on the Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) score, a mathematical function which includes the following objective variables: bilirubin, creatinine (Cr), and international normalized ratio (INR). We have noted that specific laboratory methodologies may yield consistently higher values of bilirubin, Cr, and INR. Therefore, we performed a study to determine if higher MELD scores could be obtained by utilizing laboratory methodologies selected to return higher laboratory values than standard methodologies used in our hospital’s clinical laboratory. Phlebotomy was performed for routine clinical indications in 29 consecutive patients listed for liver transplantation. MELD scores were calculated using bilirubin, Cr, and INR from laboratory methods in our hospital’s clinical laboratory (designated Lab #1) and from 2 other clinical laboratories (designated Lab #2 and Lab #3). The mean MELD score in our hospital’s clinical laboratory (Lab #1) (13.6) was not significantly different than in Lab #2 (14.7), but in Lab #3, it was significantly higher by 20% (17.1), P < .03. Virtually all of the difference in MELD score between our hospital’s clinical laboratory (Lab #1) and Lab #3 could be attributed to the INR, which was significantly higher by 26% in Lab #3 (1.9) vs. Lab #1 (1.4), P < .00002. Using MELD scores calculated from our hospital’s clinical laboratory, the average change in priority for liver transplantation was from the 58th percentile to the 77th percentile (compared to Lab #3), P = .01. In conclusion, patients listed for liver transplantation at our center achieved significantly higher MELD scores and therefore a higher priority for liver transplantation by using laboratory methodologies that yield higher INR values than our hospital laboratory. The selection of laboratory methodologies may have a significant impact on MELD score. (Liver Transpl 2004;10:995-1000.)
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
Evaluation of abnormal liver function tests
Agrawal, S., Dhiman, R. K., & Limdi, J. K. (2016) · Postgraduate Medical Journal · doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133715 · Cited by 454
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
Cholongitas, E., Marelli, L., Shusang, V., Senzolo, M., Rolles, K., Patch, D., & Burroughs, A. K. (2006) · Liver Transplantation · doi:10.1002/lt.20824 · Cited by 302
Heuman, D. M., Mihas, A. A., Habib, A., Gilles, H. S., Stravitz, R. T., Sanyal, A. J., & Fisher, R. A. (2007) · Liver Transplantation · doi:10.1002/lt.20906 · Cited by 290
Coagulation in liver disease: A guide for the clinician
Northup, P. G., & Caldwell, S. H. (2013) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2013.02.026 · Cited by 268
Metadata
- Authors
- Trotter, J. F., Brimhall, B., Arjal, R., & Phillips, C.
- Venue
- Liver Transplantation
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 995-1000
- ISSN
- 1527-6465 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2067431366
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.06
- 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: Specific laboratory methodologies achieve higher model for endstage liver disease (MELD) scores for patients listed for liver transplantation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/lt.20195
- The paper
- Trotter, J. F., Brimhall, B., Arjal, R., & Phillips, C. (2004). Specific laboratory methodologies achieve higher model for endstage liver disease (MELD) scores for patients listed for liver transplantation. Liver Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.20195
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.