Systematic Review and Validation of Prognostic Models in Liver Transplantation
Open accessAbstract
A model that can accurately predict post-liver transplant mortality would be useful for clinical decision making, would help to provide patients with prognostic information, and would facilitate fair comparisons of surgical performance between transplant units. A systematic review of the literature was carried out to assess the quality of the studies that developed and validated prognostic models for mortality after liver transplantation and to validate existing models in a large data set of patients transplanted in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland between March 1994 and September 2003. Five prognostic model papers were identified. The quality of the development and validation of all prognostic models was suboptimal according to an explicit assessment tool of the internal, external, and statistical validity, model evaluation, and practicality. The discriminatory ability of the identified models in the UK and Ireland data set was poor (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve always smaller than 0.7 for adult populations). Due to the poor quality of the reporting, the methodology used for the development of the model could not always be determined. In conclusion, these findings demonstrate that currently available prognostic models of mortality after liver transplantation can have only a limited role in clinical practice, audit, and research.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The SOFT score demonstrated a predictive accuracy similar to those of other models with a C-statistic of 0.70.
“The SOFT score demonstrated a predictive accuracy similar to those of other models (14, 15) with a C-statistic of 0.70.”
From Artificial Intelligence: Present and Future Potential for Solid Organ Transplantation (2022) · cites this paper as [15]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 68
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern Epidemiology. 2nd ed. Phil- adelphia, PA; 1998: pp. 118-134.
- Kang N, Cole T, Tsang V, Elliott M, de Leval M. Risk stratifi- cation in paediatric open-heart surgery. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery 2004;26:3-11.
- Authors
- Jacob, M., Lewsey, J. D., Sharpin, C., Gimson, A., Rela, M., & van der Meulen, J. H. P.
- Affiliations
- Health Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- Royal College of Surgeons of England (GB)
- Addenbrooke's Hospital (GB)
- King's College Hospital (GB)
- Venue
- Liver Transplantation
- Published
- 2005-06-22
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 814-825
- ISSN
- 1527-6465 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-6473
- OpenAlex
- W1987806755
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 0.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Liver Transplantation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- King's College London
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Organ Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver Disease and Transplantation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
- Keywords
- post-transplant mortality, prognostic model, model validation, model discrimination, internal validity, generalizability, reporting quality
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Models, Theoretical, Prognosis, Liver Transplantation
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