ArticleMedicine2015
A comprehensive method for predicting fatal liver failure of patients with liver cancer resection.
Article in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current status of preoperative risk assessment for posthepatectomy liver failure in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023Review
- Safe standard remnant liver volume after hepatectomy in HCC patients in different stages of hepatic fibrosis.BMC surgery · 2021Article
- Predictive Value of Indocyanine Green Plasma Disappearance Rate on Liver Function and Complications After Liver Transplantation.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2018Article
- Assessment of the feasibility of TACE combined with intratumoral injection of cisplatin in hepatocellular carcinoma.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are many methods to assess liver function, but none of them has been verified as fully effective. The purpose of this study is to establish a comprehensive method evaluating perioperative liver reserve function (LRF) in patients with primary liver cancer (PLC).In this study, 310 PLC patients who underwent liver resection were included. The cohort was divided into a training set (n = 235) and a validation set (n = 75). The factors affecting postoperative liver dysfunction (POLD) during preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods were confirmed by logistic regression analysis. The equation for calculating the preoperative liver functional evaluation index (PLFEI) was established; the cutoff value of PLFEI determined through analysis by receiver-operating characteristic curve was used to predict postoperative liver function.The data showed that body mass index, international normalized ratio, indocyanine green (ICG) retention rate at 15 minutes (ICGR15), ICG elimination rate, standard remnant liver volume (SRLV), operative bleeding volume (OBV), blood transfusion volume, and operative time were statistically different (all P < 0.05) between 2 groups of patients with and without POLD. The relationship among PLFEI, ICGR15, OBV, and SRLV is expressed as an equation of "PLFEI = 0.181 × ICGR15 + 0.001 × OBV - 0.008 × SRLV." The cutoff value of PLFEI to predict POLD was -2.16 whose sensitivity and specificity were 90.3% and 73.5%, respectively. However, when predicting fatal liver failure (FLF), the cutoff value of PLFEI was switched to -1.97 whose sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 68.8%, respectively.PLFEI will be a more comprehensive, sensitive, and accurate index assessing perioperative LRF in liver cancer patients who receive liver resection. And keeping PLFEI <-1.97 is a safety margin for preventing FLF in PLC patients who underwent liver resection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.