Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25322917›Full record

SynthesisHPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association2015

Improving the quality of liver resection: a systematic review and critical analysis of the available prognostic models.

Chetana Lim, Cornelius H Dejong, Oliver Farges, e-HPBchir Study Group from the Association de Chirurgie Hépato-Biliaire et de Transplantation (ACHBT) (Association of Hepatobilary and Transplant Surgery)

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03967067 (Risk Factors for Major Complications After Liver Resection), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03967067 completednot on this map

Risk Factors for Major Complications After Liver Resection: Audit of a Non-Eastern/Non-Western Experience

TypeobservationalSponsorMoroccan Society of SurgeryRan2010 to 2016Enrolled213ConditionsLiver DiseasesArmsliver resection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Acute kidney injury following hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: incidence, risk factors and prognostic value.HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2016
    Article
  5. Assessment of the reporting of quality and outcome measures in hepatic resections: a call for 90-day reporting in all hepatectomy series.HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2015
    Review
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

4 authors.

Chetana LimDepartment of Surgery, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Henri Mondor Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, University of Paris Est, Creteil, France.
Cornelius H Dejong
Oliver Farges
e-HPBchir Study Group from the Association de Chirurgie Hépato-Biliaire et de Transplantation (ACHBT) (Association of Hepatobilary and Transplant Surgery)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLiver resection is considered to offer the only hope of cure for patients with liver malignancy. However, there are concerns about its safety, particularly in view of the increasing efficacy of less invasive strategies. No systematic review of prognostic research in liver resections has yet been performed.

methodsA systematic search identified articles published between 1999 and 2012 that performed a risk prediction analysis in patients undergoing liver resection. Studies were included if an outcome occurring within 90 days of surgery was identified, multivariable analysis performed and regression coefficients provided. The main endpoints were the outcomes and predictors chosen by the investigators, their definition, the performance and validity of the models, and the quality of the study as assessed using the QUIPS (quality in prognosis studies) tool.

resultsA total of 91 studies were included. Eleven were prospective, but only two of these were registered. Twenty-eight endpoints were identified. These focused on postoperative morbidity or mortality, but many were redundant or ill defined and other relevant patient-reported outcomes were lacking. Predictors were not standardized, were poorly defined and overlapped. Only nine studies assessed the performance of their models and seven made an internal or temporal validation, but none reported an external validation or impact analysis. The median QUIPS score was 34 out of 50, indicating a high risk for bias.

conclusionPrognostic research in liver resection is still at the developmental stage.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHepatectomyHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleNeeds AssessmentPostoperative ComplicationsPrognosisRisk AssessmentSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID25322917
PMCPMC4333781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.