Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21980250›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2011

Multidisciplinary Canadian consensus recommendations for the management and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

M Sherman, K Burak, J Maroun, P Metrakos, J J Knox, R P Myers, M Guindi, G Porter, J R Kachura, P Rasuli and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Did AFP-L3 save ultrasonography in community screening?The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2018
    Article
  8. Combination of Permanent InterstitialTechnology in cancer research & treatment · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

M ShermanDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto; University Health Network; and Canadian Liver Foundation, Toronto, ON.
K Burak
J Maroun
P Metrakos
J J Knox
R P Myers
M Guindi
G Porter
J R Kachura
P Rasuli
S Gill
P Ghali
P Chaudhury
J Siddiqui
D Valenti
A Weiss
R Wong
McGill University Health Centre · CABC Cancer Agency · CAUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAUniversity of Toronto · CADalhousie University · CAMemorial University of Newfoundland · CASt. Boniface Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Globally, hepatocellular carcinoma (hcc) is the third most common cause of death from cancer, after lung and stomach cancer. The incidence of hcc in Canada is increasing and is expected to continue to increase over the next decade. Given the high mortality rate associated with hcc, steps are required to mitigate the impact of the disease. To address this challenging situation, a panel of 17 hcc experts, representing gastroenterologists, hepatologists, hepatobiliary surgeons, medical oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists from across Canada, convened to provide a framework that, using an evidence-based approach, will assist clinicians in optimizing the management and treatment of hcc. The recommendations, summarized here, were developed based on a rigorous methodology in a pre-specified process that was overseen by the steering committee. Specific topics were identified by the steering committee and delegated to a group of content experts within the expert panel, who then systematically reviewed the literature on that topic and drafted the related content and recommendations. The set of recommendations for each topic were reviewed and assigned a level of evidence and grade according to the levels of evidence set out by the Centre for Evidence-based Medicine, Oxford, United Kingdom. Agreement on the level of evidence for each recommendation was achieved by consensus. Consensus was defined as agreement by a two-thirds majority of the 17 members of the expert panel. Recommendations were subject to iterative review and modification by the expert panel until consensus could be achieved.

Indexed as

clinical managementconsensus recommendationsdiagnosisHepatocellular carcinomapercutaneous ethanol injectionprognosisradiofrequency ablationscreeningstagingsurgical resectionsystemic chemotherapytransarterial chemotherapytransplantation

Identifiers

PMID21980250
PMCPMC3185900
OpenAlexW1982586653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.