To MELD or not to MELD, that is a question [3]

Liver Transplantation

Volumn 13, Issue 11, 2007, Pages 1618-

  Huo, Teh Ia ^a,b   Lin, Han Chieh ^a,b   Lee, Shou Dong ^a,b  

^a TAIPEI VETERANS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL YANG MING UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PARACETAMOL;

ACCURACY; DRUG USE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LETTER; LIVER FAILURE; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MORTALITY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; SCORING SYSTEM; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VIRUS PATHOGENESIS;

HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; LIVER FAILURE, ACUTE; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; PROGNOSIS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 36448956868     PISSN: 15276465     EISSN: 15276473     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/lt.21270     Document Type: Letter

References (2)

1. Yantorno SE, Kremers WK, Ruf AE, Trentadue JJ, Podestá LG, Villamil FG. MELD is superior to King's college and Clichy's criteria to assess prognosis in fulminant hepatic failure. Liver Transpl 2007; 13:822-828.
2. Dhiman RK, Jain S, Maheshwari U, Bhalla A, Sharma N, Ahluwalia J, et al. Early indicators of prognosis in fulminant hepatic failure: an assessment of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and King's College Hospital criteria. Liver Transpl 2007;13:814-821.