ArticleBJS open2019
Propensity score analysis of non-anatomical
Article in BJS open, 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surgical and Oncological Outcomes of Wedge Resection Versus Segment 4b + 5 Resection for T2 and T3 Gallbladder Cancer: a Meta-Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Pooled it
- Cost of Treating Patients Who Undergo Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases: An Australian Pilot Study.Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Two Decades of Multimodal Management of Colorectal Liver Metastases With Long-Term Outcomes.ANZ journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of Molecular Status on Metastasectomy of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2023Review
- Article
- Cancer-associated stroma reveals prognostic biomarkers and novel insights into the tumour microenvironment of colorectal cancer and colorectal liver metastases.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are concerns that non-anatomical resection (NAR) worsens perioperative and oncological outcomes compared with those following anatomical resection (AR) for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Most previous studies have been biased by the effect of tumour size. The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after NAR Methods: This was a retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent CRLM resection with curative intent from 1999 to 2016. Data were retrieved from a prospectively developed database. Survival and perioperative outcomes for NAR and AR were compared using propensity score analyses. Results: Some 358 patients were included in the study. Median follow-up was 34 (i.q.r. 16-68) months. NAR was associated with significantly less morbidity compared with AR (31·1 Conclusions: NAR has at least equivalent oncological outcomes to AR while proving to be safer. NAR should therefore be the primary surgical approach to CRLM, especially for lesions smaller than 30 mm.
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.