SynthesisMedicine2018
Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation versus 2-stage hepatectomy: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of different options for liver regeneration of future liver remnant in patients with liver malignancies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Conventional Two-Stage Hepatectomy or Associating Liver Partitioning and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Uncommon indications for associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy: a systematic review.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2021Review
- A preoperative nomogram predicts prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation: a multicenter retrospective study.BMC cancer · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing associating liver partition and portal vein ligation (ALPPS) with conventional 2-stage hepatectomy (TSH) in terms of clinical outcomes and to determine the feasibility and safety of ALPPS.
methodsA comprehensive search strategy was adopted to search the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and China Biology Medicine disc databases for studies comparing ALPPS and TSH. The search was broadened by looking up the reference lists of the retrieved articles. A meta-analysis was performed using the statistical software RevMan (v 5.3; Cochrane Collaboration).
resultsA total of 7 studies involving 561 patients (ALPPS group, 136 patients; TSH group, 425 patients) were included in the present study, all of which were observational studies. Compared with TSH, ALPPS was associated with high completion rates of both stages [odds ratio (OR): 10.68, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 3.26-34.97, P < .0001]. No significant differences were found in other outcomes such as complications of the first (OR: 4.04, 95% CI: 0.81-20.27, P = .09) and second surgical stage (OR: 1.59, 95% CI: 0.71-3.57, P = .26), liver failure (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.29-1.98, P = .58) and the 90-day mortality rate (OR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.00-4.84, P = .05).
conclusionALPPS is associated with lower noncompletion rate and had similar perioperative outcomes relative to TSH. However, only retrospective observational studies were included in this meta-analysis, which may have limited the strength of the evidence. High-quality, large-scale studies are required to further evaluate the outcomes of ALPPS.
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.