Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26526500›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2015

Cholelithiasis and the risk of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies.

Hao Cai, Wen-Tao Kong, Chao-Bo Chen, Guo-Ming Shi, Cheng Huang, Ying-Hao Shen, Hui-Chuan Sun

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hao CaiLiver Cancer Institute and Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. doctortsai@163.com.
Wen-Tao KongDepartment of Ultrasound, Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. breezewen@163.com.
Chao-Bo ChenDepartment of General Surgery, Wuxi Xishan People's Hospital, Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, 214011, China. bobo-chen@163.com.
Guo-Ming ShiLiver Cancer Institute and Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. shi.guoming@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Cheng HuangLiver Cancer Institute and Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. huang.cheng@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Ying-Hao ShenLiver Cancer Institute and Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. shen.yinghao@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Hui-Chuan SunLiver Cancer Institute and Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. sun.huichuan@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Zhongshan Hospital · CNFudan University · CNWuxi People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe etiological factor for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is not clear. Although it has been widely accepted that intrahepatic biliary tree stone is associated with increased risk of ICC, the role of extrahepatic biliary tree stone in the incidence of ICC is controversial. In the present study we aim to evaluate the association between pre-existing choledocholithiasis and cholecystolithiasis and the risk of ICC.

methodsPubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify cohort and case-control studies on the association between choledocholithiasis or cholecystolithiasis and the risk of ICC. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were subjected to a meta-analysis performed with Stata statistical software. Either a fixed or random effect model was used, depending on the heterogeneity within the studies. Egger's test was performed to assess publication bias.

resultsSeven case-control studies met our inclusion criteria. Of the 123,771 participants, 4763 (3.85 %) were patients with ICC, and 119,008 were tumor-free controls. The presence of pre-existing bile duct stones (choledocholithiasis alone or choledocholithiasis accompanied by hepatolithiasis) was associated with the risk of ICC (odds ratio [OR] 17.64, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 11.14-27.95). Even the presence of choledocholithiasis alone (in the absence of hepatolithiasis) was associated with a high risk of ICC (OR 11.79, 95 % CI 4.17-33.35). Cholecystolithiasis may possibly contributed to the incidence of ICC (OR 2.00, 95 % CI 1.16-3.42), with large heterogeneity within studies (I (2) = 78.5 %).

conclusionsBile duct stones including choledocholithiasis are important risk factors for ICC. Careful surveillance of patients with extrahepatic biliary tree stone should be considered.

Indexed as

Bile Duct NeoplasmsBile DuctsCholangiocarcinomaCholelithiasisHumansLiver NeoplasmsRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID26526500
PMCPMC4629290
OpenAlexW1906927232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.