ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2021
Scoping review of clinical practice guidelines on the management of benign liver tumours.
Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gravitational 3D Magnetic Resonance Elastography for Differentiating Focal Nodular Hyperplasia and Hepatic Adenoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Hypoplastic left heart syndrome-a scoping review.Translational pediatrics · 2025Review
- Hepatocellular adenoma with activation of the β-catenin mutation pathway mimicking intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Case report.Radiology case reports · 2025Article
- Reconsideration of the clinical management of hepatic hemangioma.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Hepatocellular adenoma update: diagnosis, molecular classification, and clinical course.The British journal of radiology · 2024Review
- I thought it was a hemangioma! A pictorial essay about common and uncommon liver hemangiomas' mimickers.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- WFUMB Review Paper. Incidental Findings in Otherwise Healthy Subjects, How to Manage: Liver.Cancers · 2024Review
- NAFLD (MASLD)/NASH (MASH): Does It Bother to Label at All? A Comprehensive Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Liver Transplantation as a Treatment for Unresectable Hepatic Adenoma in a Patient With Abernethy Syndrome.Cureus · 2024Article
- Spontaneous Atraumatic Rupture of a Liver Hemangioma as a Rare Cause of Syncope.Case reports in hepatology · 2024Article
- Article
- Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a scoping review.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Transarterial embolization for rare spontaneous subacute intratumoral hemorrhage of hepatic hemangioma: a case report and literature review.Translational cancer research · 2022Article
- Etiology, Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Practical Implications of Hepatocellular Neoplasms.Cancers · 2022Review
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
objectiveBenign liver tumours (BLT) are increasingly diagnosed as incidentalomas. Clinical implications and management vary across and within the different types of BLT. High-quality clinical practice guidelines are needed, because of the many nuances in tumour types, diagnostic modalities, and conservative and invasive management strategies. Yet, available observational evidence is subject to interpretation which may lead to practice variation. Therefore, we aimed to systematically search for available clinical practice guidelines on BLT, to critically appraise them, and to compare management recommendations.
designA scoping review was performed within MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. All BLT guidelines published in peer-reviewed, and English language journals were eligible for inclusion. Clinical practice guidelines on BLT were analysed, compared, and critically appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) checklist regarding hepatic haemangioma, focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH), and hepatocellular adenoma (HCA). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations (PRISMA) for scoping reviews were adhered to.
resultsThe literature search yielded unique 367 papers, 348 were excluded after screening of title/abstract, and 16 after full-text screening. Three guidelines were included: the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG; 2014), Brazilian Society of Hepatology (SBH; 2015), and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL; 2016). There was no uniformity in the assessment methods for grading and gravity of recommendations between guidelines. Among observed differences were: (1) indications for biopsy in all three tumours; (2) advices on contraceptive pills and follow-up in FNH and HCA; (3) use of an individualised approach to HCA; (4) absence of recommendations for treatment of HCA in men; and (5) approaches to HCA subtype identification on magnetic resonance imaging.
conclusionRecognising differences in recommendations can assist in harmonisation of practice standards and identify unmet needs in research. This may ultimately contribute to improved global patient care.
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.