ArticleHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2023
Using the win ratio to compare laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases.
Article in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Winning" with laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM).Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2025Article
- Win ratio approach to compare laparoscopic with open liver resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2025Article
- The Win Ratio Approach in Bayesian Monitoring for Two-Arm Phase II Clinical Trial Designs With Multiple Time-To-Event Endpoints.Statistics in medicine · 2024Article
- The Effect of Hepatic Surgical Margins of Colorectal Liver Metastases on Prognosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Win Statistics in Observational Cancer Research: Integrating Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The current status and reflections on 3DHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We sought to assess the overall benefit of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) using the win ratio, a novel methodological approach. Methods: CRLM patients undergoing curative-intent resection in 2001-2018 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. Patients were paired and matched based on age, number and size of lesions, lymph node status and receipt of preoperative chemotherapy. The win ratio was calculated based on margin status, severity of postoperative complications, 90-day mortality, time to recurrence, and time to death. Results: Among 962 patients, the majority underwent open hepatectomy (n=832, 86.5%), while a minority underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy (n=130, 13.5%). Among matched patient-to-patient pairs, the odds of the patient undergoing laparoscopic resection "winning" were 1.77 [WR: 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.42-2.34]. The win ratio favored laparoscopic hepatectomy independent of low (WR: 2.94, 95% CI: 1.20-6.39), medium (WR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.16-2.10) or high (WR: 7.25, 95% CI: 1.13-32.0) tumor burden, as well as unilobar (WR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.25-2.31) or bilobar (WR: 4.57, 95% CI: 2.36-8.64) disease. The odds of "winning" were particularly pronounced relative to short-term outcomes (i.e., 90-day mortality and severity of postoperative complications) (WR: 4.06, 95% CI: 2.33-7.78). Conclusions: Patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy had 77% increased odds of "winning". Laparoscopic liver resection should be strongly considered as a preferred approach to resection in CRLM patients.
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.