Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 567

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evolution of liver transplantation in Europe: Report of the European Liver Transplant Registry

Adam, René, McMaster, Paul, O’Grady, John G., Castaing, Denis, Klempnauer, Jurgen L., Jamieson, Neville, Neuhaus, Peter, Lerut, Jan, Salizzoni, Mauro, Pollard, Stephen, Muhlbacher, Ferdinand, Rogiers, Xavier, Valdecasas, Juan Carlos Garcia, Berenguer, Joaquin, Jaeck, Daniel, Gonzalez, Enrique Moreno·2003·Liver Transplantation

Abstract

The European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR) currently allows for the analysis of 44,286 liver transplantations (LTs) performed on 39,196 patients in a 13-year period. After an exponential increase, the number of LTs is plateauing due to a lack of organs. To cope with this, alternatives to cadaveric LT, such as split LT, domino LT, or living-related LT (LRLT) are being used increasingly. They now account for 11% of all procedures. One of the most important findings in the evolution of LT is the considerable improvement of results along time with, for the mean time, a one-year survival of 83%, all indications confounded. The improvement is particularly significant for cancers. This improvement is mainly represented by hepatocellular carcinoma, with a gain of 17% for 5-year survival rate from 1990 to 2000. Increasingly, older donors are used to augment the donor pool and older recipients are transplanted due to improved results and a better selection of patients. More than two thirds of deaths and three quarters of retransplantations occurred within the first year of transplantation. Retransplantation is associated with much less optimal results than first LT. One of the prominent features of recent years is the development of LRLT. LRLT is now performed by almost half of the European centers. As with split LT or domino LT, LRLT aims to provide more patients to be transplanted. Special attention is paid to reducing the risk for the donor, which is now estimated to be 0.5% mortality and 21% postoperative morbidity.

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 · 10.1016/j.lts.2003.09.018

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 567

Metadata

Authors
Adam, R., McMaster, P., O’Grady, J. G., Castaing, D., Klempnauer, J. L., Jamieson, N., Neuhaus, P., Lerut, J., Salizzoni, M., Pollard, S., Muhlbacher, F., Rogiers, X., Valdecasas, J. C. G., Berenguer, J., Jaeck, D., & Gonzalez, E. M.
Venue
Liver Transplantation
Published
2003-12
Volume
9
Issue
12
Pages
1231-1243
ISSN
1527-6465 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2008695308
Cited by
567
References
5
FWCI
31.65
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: Evolution of liver transplantation in Europe: Report of the European Liver Transplant Registry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.lts.2003.09.018
The paper
Adam, R., McMaster, P., O’Grady, J. G., Castaing, D., Klempnauer, J. L., Jamieson, N., Neuhaus, P., Lerut, J., Salizzoni, M., Pollard, S., Muhlbacher, F., Rogiers, X., Valdecasas, J. C. G., Berenguer, J., Jaeck, D., & Gonzalez, E. M. (2003). Evolution of liver transplantation in Europe: Report of the European Liver Transplant Registry. Liver Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lts.2003.09.018

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.