ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2021
Short-term efficacy of precise hepatectomy and traditional hepatectomy for primary liver cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of precision hepatectomy in the treatment of primary liver cancer.BMC surgery · 2023Trial
- Development and validation of nomogram to predict overall survival and disease-free survival after surgical resection in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs the base of hepatitis B patients has been increasing annually, it has developed into a high incidence source of primary liver cancer worldwide. The fatality rate of liver cancer is still relatively high. Among the many treatment methods, liver resection is the first-line treatment of primary liver cancer. Although precision hepatectomy has achieved rapid development in recent years, the understanding of its efficacy is still not completely clear. This study aimed to analyze and compare the safety and effectiveness of precision hepatectomy and traditional hepatectomy in the treatment of primary liver cancer.
methodsWe performed a literature search of the CNKI, Wanfang, Weipu.com, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science databases for studies on precision liver resection (precision group) and traditional liver resection (traditional group) for the treatment of primary liver cancer. Data including the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative complications, liver function, and survival rate were analyzed using RevMan 5.3 software to compare the differences in the effects of the two surgical procedures.
resultsTen articles were included in the study, involving a total of 1,969 patients, including 1,045 cases in the precision group and 924 cases in the traditional group. Meta-analysis results showed that compared with the traditional group, the precision group had a longer operation time [mean difference (MD) =8.01, P=0.004], and total bilirubin (TBiL; MD =-2.78, P=0.055) was similar. Meanwhile, the precision group exhibited advantages in terms of intraoperative blood loss (MD =-149.37, P=0.000), hospital stay (MD =-5.59, P=0.000), postoperative liver function indexes [aspartate aminotransferase (AST; MD =-11.61, P=0.000) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT; MD =-18.53, P=0.000)], postoperative complication rate [relative risk (RR) =0.51, P=0.000], and 1-year survival rate (RR =1.11, P=0.000). DISCUSSION: The application of precision surgery in the treatment of primary liver cancer can be a safe and effective method. It can minimize intraoperative blood loss, mitigate surgical risk, reduce postoperative complications, improve patient prognosis and quality of life, and provide better short-term curative effect and patient benefits.
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.