Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36117165›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2022

Oncological outcomes of anatomic versus non-anatomic resections for small hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies.

Xiao-Ming Dai, Zhi-Qiang Xiang, Qian Wang, Hua-Jian Li, Zhu Zhu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 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
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xiao-Ming Dai *Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, No. 69 ChuanShan Road, Shigu District, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China.
Zhi-Qiang Xiang *Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, No. 69 ChuanShan Road, Shigu District, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China.
Qian WangDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, No. 69 ChuanShan Road, Shigu District, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China.
Hua-Jian LiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, No. 69 ChuanShan Road, Shigu District, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China.
Zhu ZhuDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, No. 69 ChuanShan Road, Shigu District, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China. zhuzhu027@gmail.com.
University of South China · CN

Funding

Clinical Medicine Technological Innovation Leading Project of Hunan Province Grant No. 2020SK51818Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province Grant No. 2021JJ70120
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary liver cancer is the second-most commonly occurring cancer and has resulted in numerous deaths worldwide. Hepatic resection is of two main types, i.e., anatomic resection (AR) and non-anatomic resection (NAR). The oncological outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients after AR and NAR are still considered controversial. Therefore, we aimed to compare the impact of AR and NAR on the oncological outcomes of HCC patients with tumor diameters ≤ 5 cm using the propensity score matching method and research-based evidence.

methodA systematic literature search was conducted. The main outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), intrahepatic recurrence rate, and extrahepatic metastasis rate. Relative risk (RR) was calculated from forest plots and outcomes using random-effects model (REM).

resultAR significantly improved DFS at 1, 3. and 5 years after surgery, compared to NAR (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.04-1.15, P = 0.0003; RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.07-1.27, P = 0.0005; RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.07-1.55, P = 0.008). However, both of the difference in DFS at 7 years and OS at 1 and 3 years after AR versus that after NAR were not statistically significant. Nevertheless, the long-term OS associated with AR (5, 7, and 10 years) was superior to that associated with NAR (RR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.03-1.21, P = 0.01; RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.04-1.36, P = 0.01; RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.05-1.34, P = 0.008). The difference in the intrahepatic recurrence rate after AR versus that after NAR was not statistically significant, but the extrahepatic metastasis rate after AR was significantly lower than that observed after NAR (RR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.40-0.94, P = 0.03).

conclusionTherefore, AR should be the preferred surgical approach for HCC patients with tumor diameters ≤ 5 cm.

trial registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42022330596.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsHepatectomyHumansPropensity ScoreAnatomic resectionHepatocellular carcinomaNon-anatomic resectionPropensity score matchingSurvival

Identifiers

PMID36117165
PMCPMC9484142
OpenAlexW4296323400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.