But we should acknowledge that before implementing a model into clinical practice, priority should be given to large scale validation studies because the diagnostic accuracy is easy to be affected by different etiologies

of CLDs, patient populations and test methods. This study was supported PLX3397 cell line by the National Key Technologies Research and Development Program of China during the 11th Five-year Plan Period (2008ZX10002-006), the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program, No: 2006AA02A411), Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (No: 064119519), the Key Project of Shanghai Medical Development Foundation (No: 99ZDI001), and Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project (No: Y0205). “
“This practice guideline has been approved by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society of Transplantation and the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition. Current American Association

for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) liver transplant evaluation guidelines include both adult and pediatric patients.[1] While pediatric liver transplants account for ∼7.8% of all liver transplants in the United States, sufficient differences between pediatric and adult patients seeking liver transplantation (LT) now require independent, yet complementary documents. This document will focus on pediatric issues at each level of the evaluation process. Disease categories suitable for find more referral to a pediatric LT program are similar to adults: acute liver failure, autoimmune, medchemexpress cholestasis, metabolic or genetic, oncologic, vascular, and infectious. However, specific etiologies and outcomes differ widely from adult patients, justifying independent pediatric guidelines. Data supporting

our recommendations are based on a Medline search of the English language literature from 1997 to the present. Intended for use by physicians, these recommendations suggest preferred approaches to the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspects of care. They are intended to be flexible, in contrast to standards of care, which are inflexible policies to be followed in every case. Specific recommendations are based on relevant published information. To more fully characterize the available evidence supporting the recommendations, the AASLD Practice Guidelines Committee has adopted the classification used by the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) workgroup with minor modifications (Table 1). The classifications and recommendations are based on three categories: the source of evidence in levels I through III; the quality of evidence designated by high (A), moderate (B), or low quality (C); and the strength of recommendations classified as strong or weak. Each Association appointed at least one author to serve on the writing group. The Chair of the writing group was appointed by the AASLD.