The research team, led by Elnaz Chohedri, Melika Moradi, Bahare Oji, Erfan Sadeghi, and Hamed Nikoupour Daylami, drew their participants from the Namazi Hospital Liver Transplant Registry, randomly selecting 100 patients who had undergone liver transplantation between 2020 and 2023. The average age of the participants was 40.8 years, with a standard deviation of 11.3 years, and 61 percent were men. Each participant completed a demographic questionnaire along with two well-established psychological instruments: the Mississippi Scale for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and the 21-item Posttraumatic Growth Inventory, known as the PTGI.

The Mississippi Scale is a widely used screening tool that quantifies trauma-related symptoms such as intrusive memories, avoidance behaviors, emotional numbing, and hyperarousal. In this study, a score above 107 was defined as the threshold for screening positive for PTSD symptoms. The PTGI, by contrast, measures perceived positive change across domains such as appreciation of life, relationships with others, personal strength, new possibilities, and spiritual change. Rather than treating growth as a simple yes-or-no category, the researchers analyzed total PTGI scores as a continuous variable, capturing the full spectrum of self-reported psychological transformation.

The headline finding is one of cautious reassurance. Screening-positive PTSD symptoms were observed in 12 percent of the participants, meaning that the vast majority of liver transplant recipients in this sample did not report trauma symptoms at the clinical threshold. Meanwhile, the mean PTGI total score was 46.37, with a standard deviation of 26.20, indicating substantial variability from one patient to another. Some recipients reported profound positive change, while others reported little or none. This spread matters, because it suggests that surviving a transplant does not automatically produce either lasting psychological injury or a guaranteed sense of renewal.

Perhaps the most technically interesting result is what the researchers did not find. In exploratory regression analyses, no statistically significant associations emerged between any of the assessed demographic variables—such as age or sex—and either screening-positive PTSD symptoms or PTGI total scores. Nor did the correlation between PTSD symptoms and post-traumatic growth reach statistical significance; the relationship was weak. This absence of association challenges a common intuition that suffering and growth are two sides of the same coin, with more distress automatically yielding more transformation. In this Iranian cohort, the two phenomena appear to travel on largely independent tracks.

That independence carries real clinical weight. Post-traumatic stress disorder and post-traumatic growth are conceptually distinct outcomes, and this study adds empirical support to the idea that clinicians cannot infer one from the other. A patient who reports little distress may not necessarily have experienced growth, and a patient who describes finding new meaning in life may still harbor untreated trauma symptoms. Screening for both, the authors suggest, may be necessary to build an accurate picture of each recipient’s psychological adaptation after surgery.

The context of liver transplantation makes these findings particularly striking. Candidates for transplant typically endure end-stage liver disease, a condition marked by fatigue, jaundice, cognitive impairment, and the constant risk of life-threatening complications such as variceal bleeding or hepatic encephalopathy. The surgery itself involves major abdominal trauma, often followed by an intensive care unit stay, and the post-transplant period demands strict adherence to immunosuppressive regimens and frequent monitoring for rejection and infection. Each of these elements is a recognized stressor in the trauma literature. Against that backdrop, a screening-positive PTSD rate of 12 percent is notably moderate, though cross-sectional designs and self-report instruments mean the figure should be interpreted as a snapshot rather than a definitive prevalence estimate.

The study also fills a geographic gap. The authors note that evidence on PTSD and post-traumatic growth after liver transplantation in Middle Eastern countries has remained limited, leaving clinicians in the region without locally relevant data. Cultural factors can shape how patients interpret illness, express distress, and report personal change, so findings from Western transplant centers cannot simply be assumed to transfer. By providing baseline data from an Iranian cohort, the Shiraz team gives regional transplant programs a starting point for building psychological screening into routine follow-up care, alongside the biochemical and immunological monitoring that already dominates post-transplant visits.

Methodological caveats deserve honest attention. As a cross-sectional study, the design captures a single moment in time and cannot establish whether trauma symptoms or growth emerged early or late after surgery, nor how they evolve. The sample of 100 patients, while adequate for exploratory analysis, limits statistical power, which may partly explain why no demographic associations reached significance. The reliance on self-report scales introduces the usual risks of recall and response biases, and the Mississippi Scale threshold identifies screening-positive symptoms rather than formal clinical diagnoses. The authors themselves emphasize that further longitudinal studies are needed to track psychological trajectories over the months and years following transplantation.

Even with those limitations, the study’s practical message is clear. Psychological assessment after liver transplantation may be useful for identifying distress and understanding how patients adapt to their new lives, and it should not be reserved only for patients who visibly struggle. The coexistence of a minority with trauma symptoms and a wide range of growth scores suggests that transplant medicine, having conquered so much of the biology of organ failure, still has work to do on the mind. For the growing global population of transplant survivors, routine, structured psychological follow-up could help ensure that a saved life also becomes a lived one—whether that means treating lingering trauma, nurturing newfound resilience, or simply asking patients, systematically and early, how they are truly coping.

Subject of Research: Post-traumatic stress disorder and post-traumatic growth in liver transplant recipients

Article Title: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and post-traumatic growth (PTG) after liver transplantation (LT): a cross-sectional study in Shiraz, Iran

Article References: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and post-traumatic growth (PTG) after liver transplantation (LT): a cross-sectional study in Shiraz, Iran. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-026-08744-0

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12888-026-08744-0

Keywords: liver transplantation, PTSD, post-traumatic growth, psychological outcomes, cross-sectional study, Iran, mental health, trauma psychology, psychological assessment, transplant recipients, Post-traumatic, stress