ReviewTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2017
Enlarged selection criteria for hepatocellular cancer: is the upper limit needed?
Review in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Analysis of risk factors of tumor recurrence after liver transplantation for HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma patients].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2018Article
- Recent innovations in the management of hepatocellular cancer in the setting of liver transplantation: preface.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is strategically challenging because the very good mid-term outcomes of this treatment jar with the risk of cancer recurrence. Although Milan criteria (MC) tap the balance on the safe side, they tend to be considered too restrictive and new, enlarged criteria have been conceived in order to enlarge the pool of potential recipients. Some extended criteria are more audacious then others, but they seem to be well tailored on the local reality they are applied to. Being HCC epidemiology and organs availability very variable between regions, a universally valid 'upper limit' is yet to be determinable.
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.