Compared efficacy of preservation solutions on the outcome of liver transplantation: Meta-analysis

Table 2 Primary non-function rate in included studies

Study	Solution 1				Solution 2				RR	P value
		N	n	%		N	n	%
Cavallari et al[13], 2003	UW	90	1	1.100	CS	83	0	0.000	2.77	0.53
Lopez-Andujar et al[26], 2009	UW	104	2	1.900	CS	92	2	2.200	0.88	0.90
García-Gil et al[33], 2006	UW	40	0	0.000	CS	40	0	0.000	1.00	1.00
Nardo et al[27], 2001	UW	60	2	3.333	CS	53	0	0.000	4.43	0.33
Duca et al[28], 2010	UW	51	0	0.000	CS	51	0	0.000	1.00	1.00
García-Gil et al[35], 2011	UW	51	4	11.100	CS	51	4	11.100	1.00	1.00
Lama et al[29], 2002	UW	10	0	0.000	CS	10	0	0.000	1.00	1.00
Rayya et al[30], 2008	UW	68	1	1.471	HTK	69	1	1.449	1.01	0.99
Meine et al[32], 2006	UW	65	2	3.070	HTK	37	1	3.030	1.14	0.91
Erhard et al[9], 1994	UW	30	2	6.660	HTK	30	0	0.000	5.00	0.29
Mangus et al[31], 2008	UW	98	5	5.102	HTK	111	3	2.703	1.89	0.38
Dondéro et al[37], 2010	UW	92	4	4.350	IGL-1	48	1	2.080	2.09	0.51
Meine et al[8], 2015	HTK	65	2	3.100	IGL-1	113	3	2.700	1.16	0.87
Wiederkehr et al[21], 2014	HTK	125	1	0.700	IGL-1	53	0	0.000	1.29	0.88
Nardo et al[12], 2005	HTK	20	1	5.000	CS	20	0	0.000	3.00	0.49

Studies are grouped by preservation solutions. PNF: Primary non-function; N: Indicates number in group; n: Number of PNF; RR: Relative risk; UW: University of Wisconsin solution; HTK: Histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution; CS: Celsior solution; IGL-1: Institut Georges Lopez solution.