Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31058674›Full record

SynthesisChinese medical journal2019

Hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence in living and deceased donor liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hai-Ming Zhang, Yue-Xian Shi, Li-Ying Sun, Zhi-Jun Zhu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Chinese medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Meta-analysis and meta-regression of outcomes for adult living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Hai-Ming ZhangLiver Transplantation Center, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Beijing Key Laboratory of Tolerance Induction and Organ Protection in Transplantation, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China.
Yue-Xian ShiPeking University School of Nursing, Beijing 100191, China.
Li-Ying SunLiver Transplantation Center, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Beijing Key Laboratory of Tolerance Induction and Organ Protection in Transplantation, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China.
Zhi-Jun ZhuLiver Transplantation Center, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases and Beijing Key Laboratory of Tolerance Induction and Organ Protection in Transplantation, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough a number of technical problems and donor safety issues associated with living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) have been resolved, some initial clinical studies showed an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in LDLT. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess differences in tumor recurrence between LDLT and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT).

methodsAfter systematic retrievals of studies about LDLT and DDLT for HCC, articles were selected with a rationale of emphasizing inter-group comparability. Results from multivariate analyses were combined and discussed together with univariate analyses. In subgroup analysis, the impact of organ allocation policy was taken into consideration.

resultsSeven articles were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, a salient result that emerged from the seven studies was a significant increased risk of HCC recurrence in the LDLT group than in the DDLT group (P = 0.01). The most significant increase in hazard ratio was found in studies where organs tended to be allocated to non-tumor patients.

conclusionsAn increased risk for HCC recurrence in LDLT as compared with DDLT patients was found. The relatively shorter preoperative observation windows in LDLT may lead to fewer cases of HCC with invasive features being screened out, which may provide a possible explanation for the high rates of HCC recurrence.

Indexed as

AnimalsCarcinoma, HepatocellularHumansLiver NeoplasmsLiver TransplantationLiving DonorsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProportional Hazards Models

Identifiers

PMID31058674
PMCPMC6616234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.