Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29133822›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2017

A non-smooth tumor margin on preoperative imaging assesses microvascular invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

HangTong Hu, Qiao Zheng, Yang Huang, Xiao Wen Huang, Zhi Cheng Lai, JingYa Liu, XiaoYan Xie, Shi Ting Feng, Wei Wang, Ming De Lu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  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

10 authors.

HangTong HuDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Qiao ZhengDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Yang HuangDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiao Wen HuangDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhi Cheng LaiDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
JingYa LiuDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
XiaoYan XieDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Shi Ting FengDepartment of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China. fst1977@163.com.
Wei WangDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China. wangw73@mail.sysu.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-9485-583X
Ming De LuDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microvascular invasion (MVI) is rarely diagnosed preoperatively in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the diagnostic power of a non-smooth tumor margin on preoperative imaging for MVI. We performed a literature search using the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases, and 11 studies were included involving 618 MVI-positive cases and 1030 MVI-negative cases. Considerable heterogeneity was found, and was indicated to be attributable to the mean patient ages in the included studies. In subgroups of studies with a mean patient age older than 60 years and studies with computed tomography (CT) as the imaging method (as opposed to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)), heterogeneity was low, and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of the single two-dimensional imaging feature for MVI was 21.30 (95% CI [12.52, 36.23]) and 28.78 (95% CI [13.92, 59.36]), respectively; this power was equivalent to or greater than that of certain multivariable-based scoring systems. In conclusion, a non-smooth tumor margin on preoperative imaging is of great value for MVI assessment and should be considered for inclusion in future scoring systems.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMicrovesselsNeovascularization, PathologicTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansMargins of ExcisionNeoplasm Invasiveness

Identifiers

PMID29133822
PMCPMC5684346

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.