Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32379819›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Does additional resection of a positive microscopic ductal margin benefit patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Qiao Ke, Yuqing Chen, Qizhen Huang, Nanping Lin, Lei Wang, Jingfeng Liu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Qiao KeDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Yuqing ChenThe Graduate School of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Qizhen HuangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Nanping LinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Lei WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9406-8572
Jingfeng LiuDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Fujian Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Margins of ExcisionNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalBile Duct NeoplasmsHumansKlatskin TumorPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID32379819
PMCPMC7205232
OpenAlexW3021365266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.