SynthesisCanadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology2021
Reporting and Performance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk Prediction Models: Based on TRIPOD Statement and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the predictive value of clinical models for HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- HCC prediction models in chronic hepatitis B patients receiving entecavir or tenofovir: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Virology journal · 2023Pooled it
- Non-Invasive Assessment of Microvascular Invasion Risk in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Liquid Biopsy: Translational Insights and Clinical Implications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparison of abbreviated MRI and ultrasonography in the detection of early hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Hepatocellular carcinoma risk scores for non-viral liver disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2025Article
- Identify GADD45G as a potential target of 4-methoxydalbergione in treatment of liver cancer: bioinformatics analysis and in vivo experiment.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- The expression characteristics and clinical significance of ACP6, a potential target of nitidine chloride, in hepatocellular carcinoma.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Risk stratification of primary liver cancer.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Article
- A simple CD4+ T cells to FIB-4 ratio for evaluating prognosis of BCLC-B hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Article
- Reporting Quality of Studies Developing and Validating Melanoma Prediction Models: An Assessment Based on the TRIPOD Statement.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Incidence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Decompensated Liver Cirrhosis and Prognostic Accuracy of the PAGE-B HCC Risk Score in a Low Endemic Hepatitis B Virus Infected Population.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 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
Background: The performance of risk prediction models for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) was uncertain. The aim of the study was to critically evaluate the reports of transparent and external validation performances of these prediction models based on system review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic search of the Web of Science and PubMed was performed for studies published until October 17, 2020. The transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for the individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) tool was used to critically evaluate the quality of external validation reports for six models (CU-HCC, GAG-HCC, PAGE-B, mPAGE-B, REACH-B, and mREACH-B). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) values was to estimate the pooled external validating performance based on meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis and metaregression were also performed to explore heterogeneity. Results: Our meta-analysis included 22 studies published between 2011 and 2020. The compliance of the included studies to TRIPOD ranged from 59% to 90% (median, 74%; interquartile range (IQR), 70%, 79%). The AUC values of the six models ranged from 0.715 to 0.778. In the antiviral therapy subgroups, the AUC values of mREACH-B, GAG-HCC, and mPAGE-B were 0.785, 0.760, and 0.778, respectively. In the cirrhosis subgroup, all models had poor discrimination performance (AUC < 0.7). Conclusions: A full report of calibration and handling of missing values would contribute to a greater improvement in the quality of external validation reports for CHB-related HCC risk prediction. It was necessary to develop a specific HCC risk prediction model for patients with cirrhosis.
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.