Predicting Survival after Liver Transplantation Based on Pre-Transplant MELD Score: a Systematic Review of the Literature

Kristin B Klein, Taenia D Stafinski and Devidas Menon

PLOS ONE, 2013, vol. 8, issue 12, 1-

Abstract: The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score is used to stratify candidates for liver transplantation based on objective measures of disease severity. MELD has been validated as a predictor of wait-list mortality in transplantation candidates and has been postulated as a predictor of post-transplant survival. The purpose of this study was to examine the predictive value of the pre-transplantation MELD score on post-transplant survival from relevant existing studies. A systematic review and critical appraisal was performed using Cochrane guidelines. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for articles published in the English language since 2005 using a structured search strategy. There were 3058 discrete citations identified and screened for possible inclusion. Any study examining the relationship between pre-transplant MELD and post-transplant survival in the general transplant population was included. Thirty-seven studies met these criteria and were included in the review. Studies were all case series that typically involved stratified analyses of survival by MELD. They represented 15 countries and a total of 53,691 patients. There was significant clinical heterogeneity in patient populations across studies, which precluded performance of a meta-analysis. In 15 studies, no statistically significant association between MELD and post-transplant survival was found. In the remaining 22, some association was found. Eleven studies also measured predictive ability with c-statistics. Values were below 0.7 in all but two studies, suggesting poor predictive value. In summary, while the majority of studies reported an association between pre-transplantation MELD score and post-transplant survival, they represented a low level of evidence. Therefore, their findings should be interpreted conservatively.

Date: 2013
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080661 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 80661&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0080661

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080661

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().