SynthesisPloS one2020
Does additional resection of a positive microscopic ductal margin benefit patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Additional Resection on Outcomes in Patients with Positive Proximal Margin of Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Does Intraoperative Frozen Section and Revision of Margins Lead to Improved Survival in Patients Undergoing Resection of Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Role of Intraoperative Frozen Section Assessment of Proximal Bile Duct Margins and the Impact of Additional Re-Resection in Perihilar Cholangiocarcinomas.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Surgical management of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Controversies and recommendations.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2023Review
- Impact of Positive Radial Margin on Recurrence and Survival in Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma.Cancers · 2022Article
- Surgical Therapy for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: State of the Art.Visceral medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of a positive microscopic ductal margin (R1) after surgical resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) remains high, but the beneficial of additional resection has not been confirmed by any meta-analysis and randomized clinical trials (RCT), which also increased the risk of morbidity and mortality. Hence, a systematic review is warranted to evaluate the clinical value of additional resection of intraoperative R1 for pCCA.
methodsEligible studies were searched by PubMed, MedLine, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, from Jan.1st 2000 to Nov.30th 2019, evaluating the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of additional resection of intraoperative pathologic R1 for pCCA. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to determine the effect size by a randomized-effect model.
resultsEight studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis, including 179 patients in the secondary R0 group, 843 patients in the primary R0 group and 253 patients in the R1 group. The pooled OR for the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rate between secondary R0 group and primary R0 group were 1.03(95%CI 0.64~1.67, P = 0.90), 0.92(95%CI 0.52~1.64, P = 0.78), and 0.83(95%CI 0.37~1.84, P = 0.65), respectively. The pooled OR for the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rate between secondary R0 group and R1 group were 2.14(95%CI 1.31~3.50, P = 0.002), 2.58(95%CI 1.28~5.21, P = 0.008), and 3.54(95%CI 1.67~7.50, P = 0.001), respectively. However, subgroup analysis of the West showed that the pooled OR for the 1-, and 3-year OS rate between secondary R0 group and R1 group were 2.05(95%CI 0.95~4.41, P = 0.07), 1.91(95%CI 0.96~3.81, P = 0.07), respectively.
conclusionWith the current data, additional resection should be recommended in selected patients with intraoperative R1, but the conclusion is needed further validation.
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.