ArticlePeerJ2021
Effect of vascular resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practice guidelines for managing extrahepatic biliary tract cancers.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of vascular resection (VR), including portal vein resection (PVR) and hepatic artery resection (HAR), on short- and long-term outcomes in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC).
backgroundResection surgery and transplantation are the main treatment methods for PHC that provide a chance of long-term survival. However, the efficacy and safety of VR, including PVR and HAR, for treating PHC remain controversial.
methodsThis study was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020223330). The EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were used to search for eligible studies published through November 28, 2020. Studies comparing short- and long-term outcomes between patients who underwent hepatectomy with or without PVR and/or HAR were included. Random- and fixed-effects models were applied to assess the outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, and R0 resection rate, as well as the impact of PVR and HAR on long-term survival.
resultsTwenty-two studies including 4,091 patients were deemed eligible and included in this study. The meta-analysis showed that PVR did not increase the postoperative morbidity rate (odds ratio (OR): 1.03, 95% confidenceinterval (CI): [0.74-1.42], P = 0.88) and slightly increased the postoperative mortality rate (OR: 1.61, 95% CI [1.02-2.54],
conclusionsPVR is relatively safe and might benefit certain patients with advanced PHC in terms of long-term survival, but it is not routinely recommended. HAR results in a higher mortality rate and lower overall survival rate, with no proven benefit.
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.