Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30197797›Full record

ArticleCancer biology & medicine2018

Yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization versus conventional transarterial chemoembolization for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yi Yang, Tongguo Si

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer biology & medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. TARE in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From the Right to the Left of BCLC.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2022
    Review
  15. Local-Regional Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Primer for Radiologists.Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

2 authors.

Yi YangSchool of Medical Imaging, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300203, China.
Tongguo SiDepartment of Interventional Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer; Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin; Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the effects and safety of conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) and yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization [TARE (90Y)] for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

methodsNine high-quality observational studies, one low bias-risk randomized controlled trial (RCT), and one moderate bias-risk RCT included 1,652 patients [cTACE, 1,124; TARE (90Y), 528], from whom data were extracted for this systematic review and meta-analysis.

resultsThe extracted study outcomes included 1-year and 2-year overall survival (OS) rates, objective responses (ORs), and serious adverse events (AEs). 1-year OS rates: OR = 0.939, 95 % CI: 0.705-1.251,

conclusionsTARE (90Y) increased 2-year OS rates in the observational subgroup and resulted in better OR rates, according to mRECIST criteria, in comparison with cTACE. Furthermore, a lower risk of AEs was observed for TARE (90Y) than for cTACE.

Indexed as

conventional transarterial chemoembolizationHepatocellular carcinomatransarterial radioembolizationyttrium-90

Identifiers

PMID30197797
PMCPMC6121048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.