ReviewHepatic oncology2022
Systematic literature review of trials assessing recommended systemic treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma.
Review in Hepatic oncology, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Efficacy of TACE Combined with Lenvatinib and Pembrolizumab in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (BCLC C): A Retrospective Study.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2025Article
- Hepatoma-Targeting and ROS-Responsive Polymeric Micelle-Based Chemotherapy Combined with Photodynamic Therapy for Hepatoma Treatment.International journal of nanomedicine · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo identify and evaluate the similarity of all trials assessing recommended treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. MATERIALS &
methodsSingle arm and randomized trials from any phase and published any time up to February 2021 were systematically searched.
resultsFrom 5677 records reviewed, 50 trials were included in the review, and 24 for assessed for similarity. In the first-line (1L) setting, several trials assessing sorafenib were noted for enrolling patients with more severe disease and/or performance status than other 1L trials; trials within the second-line (2L) setting were generally similar. Median survival was <2 years in all trial arms.
conclusionsTrials assessing recommended treatments are largely similar and appropriate for quantitative comparisons of several efficacy and safety outcomes.
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.