ReviewFrontiers in oncology2024
Repeat hepatectomy versus thermal ablation therapy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the survival benefits of repeat hepatectomy (RH) and thermal ablation therapy (TAT) in managing recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in the PubMed, SinoMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Medline, and Web of Science databases using relevant keywords to identify all studies published on this specific topic. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a fixed-effects model. Results: This meta-analysis included a total of 21 studies, comprising 2580 patients with recurrent HCC, among whom 1189 underwent RH and 1394 underwent TAT. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that the RH group exhibited superior overall survival (OS) (HR=0.85, 95%CI 0.76∼0.95, P=0.004) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR=0.79, 95%CI 0.7∼0.9, P<0.01) compared to the TAT group. Regarding postoperative complications, the TAT group experienced fewer complications than the RH group (OR=3.23, 95%CI 1.48∼7.07, P=0.003), while no significant difference in perioperative mortality was observed between the two groups (OR=2.11, 95%CI 0.54∼8.19, P=0.28). Conclusion: The present study demonstrates that, in comparison to TAT, RH may confer superior survival benefits for patients with recurrent HCC.
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.