Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 424

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are There Better Guidelines for Allocation in Liver Transplantation?: A Novel Score Targeting Justice and Utility in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Era

Dutkowski, Philipp, Oberkofler, Christian E., Slankamenac, Ksenija, Puhan, Milo A., Schadde, Erik, Müllhaupt, Beat, Geier, Andreas, Clavien, Pierre A.·2011·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To design a new score on risk assessment for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) based on both donor and recipient parameters. BACKGROUND: The balance of waiting list mortality and posttransplant outcome remains a difficult task in the era of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). METHODS: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, a risk analysis was performed in adult recipients of OLT in the United States of America between 2002 and 2010 (n = 37,255). Living donor-, partial-, or combined-, and donation after cardiac death liver transplants were excluded. Next, a risk score was calculated (balance of risk score, BAR score) on the basis of logistic regression factors, and validated using our own OLT database (n = 233). Finally, the new score was compared with other prediction systems including donor risk index, survival outcome following liver transplantation, donor-age combined with MELD, and MELD score alone. RESULTS: Six strongest predictors of posttransplant survival were identified: recipient MELD score, cold ischemia time, recipient age, donor age, previous OLT, and life support dependence prior to transplant. The new balance of risk score stratified recipients best in terms of patient survival in the United Network for Organ Sharing data, as in our European population. CONCLUSIONS: The BAR system provides a new, simple and reliable tool to detect unfavorable combinations of donor and recipient factors, and is readily available before decision making of accepting or not an organ for a specific recipient. This score may offer great potential for better justice and utility, as it revealed to be superior to recent developed other prediction scores.

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 · 10.1097/sla.0b013e3182365081

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 424

Metadata

Authors
Dutkowski, P., Oberkofler, C. E., Slankamenac, K., Puhan, M. A., Schadde, E., Müllhaupt, B., Geier, A., & Clavien, P. A.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2011-11
Volume
254
Issue
5
Pages
745-754
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2017332381
Cited by
424
References
2
FWCI
13.56
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: Are There Better Guidelines for Allocation in Liver Transplantation?: A Novel Score Targeting Justice and Utility in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Era. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e3182365081
The paper
Dutkowski, P., Oberkofler, C. E., Slankamenac, K., Puhan, M. A., Schadde, E., Müllhaupt, B., Geier, A., & Clavien, P. A. (2011). Are There Better Guidelines for Allocation in Liver Transplantation?: A Novel Score Targeting Justice and Utility in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Era. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3182365081

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.