Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35230928›Full record

ArticleCancer biology & therapy2022

Treatment efficacy and safety of drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization versus conventional transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with arterioportal fistula.

Liang Cai, Honglu Li, Jiang Guo, Wenpeng Zhao, Youjia Duan, Xiaopu Hou, Long Cheng, Hongliu Du, Xihong Shao, Zhenying Diao and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer biology & therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. One-step fabrication of lidocaine/CalliSpheresJournal of translational medicine · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Liang CaiDepartment of Oncology, Interventional Radiology, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Honglu LiDepartment of Oncology, Interventional Radiology, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jiang GuoDepartment of Oncology, Interventional Radiology, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Wenpeng ZhaoDepartment of Oncology, Interventional Radiology, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Youjia DuanDepartment of Oncology, Interventional Radiology, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiaopu HouDepartment of Oncology, Interventional Radiology, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Long ChengDepartment of Oncology, Interventional Radiology, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Hongliu DuDepartment of Oncology, Interventional Radiology, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xihong ShaoDepartment of Oncology, Interventional Radiology, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zhenying DiaoDepartment of Oncology, Interventional Radiology, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yiwei HaoDepartment of Oncology, Interventional Radiology, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xinmei ZhengDepartment of Oncology, Interventional Radiology, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Changqing LiDepartment of Oncology, Interventional Radiology, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9649-150X
Wei LiDepartment of Oncology, Interventional Radiology, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the treatment efficacy and tolerance between drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) and conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with arterioportal fistula (APF). A total of 44 HCC patients with APF scheduled for DEB-TACE (N = 24, as DEB-TACE group) or cTACE (N = 20, as cTACE group) were recruited. Treatment response, hepatic function, and adverse events were assessed or recorded. Besides, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Total treatment response was better in the DEB-TACE group compared with the cTACE group (

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularChemoembolization, TherapeuticFistulaLiver NeoplasmsHumansRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcomearterioportal fistulaDEB-TACEHepatocellular carcinomasafetytreatment response

Identifiers

PMID35230928
PMCPMC8890397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.