ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Liver Transplantation
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plasma methylated GNB4 and Riplet as a novel dual-marker panel for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma.Epigenetics · 2024Article
- Identifying hepatocellular carcinoma patients with survival benefits from surgery combined with chemotherapy: based on machine learning model.World journal of surgical oncology · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) and liver resection (LR) among patients with stage I and II hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
methodsSEER 18 registry from 2004 to 2015 was retrieved for this study. We included 1,765 and 1,746 cases with stage I-II (AJCC, 7
resultsWe identified 1,000 (56.7%) and 765 (43.3%) patients treated with LR and LT, respectively. In the multivariable adjusted cohort, after adjusting potential confounders, patients undergoing LT offered significant prognostic advantages over LR in overall survival (OS, P < 0.001) and disease-free survival (DSS, P < 0.001). The instrument variable in this study is LT rates in various Health Service Areas (HSAs). Results from the IV analysis showed that cases treated with LT had significantly longer OS (P = 0.001) and DSS (P < 0.001). In IV analysis stratified by clinicopathologic variables, the treatment effect of LT
conclusionsLT provided a survival benefit for cases with stage I-II HCC. These results indicated that if LT rate was to increase in the future, average long-term survival may also increase. However, for some special populations such as the elderly patients, owing to the similar outcomes between LT and LR, the selection of LT should be cautious.
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.