Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39035193›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Center2023

Benefits and harms of screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in high-risk populations: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jichun Yang, Zhirong Yang, Xueyang Zeng, Shuqing Yu, Le Gao, Yu Jiang, Feng Sun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Center, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Jichun YangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Zhirong YangPrimary Care Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Xueyang ZengDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Shuqing YuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Le GaoCentre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Yu JiangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Feng SunDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The incidence and mortality of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been increasing around the world. Current guidelines recommend HCC screening in high-risk population. However, the strength of evidence of benefits and harms of HCC screening to support the recommendation was unclear. The objective is to systematically synthesize current evidence on the benefits and harms of HCC screening. Methods: We searched PubMed and nine other databases until August 20, 2021. We included cohort studies and RCTs that compared the benefits and harms of screening and non-screening in high-risk population of HCC. Case series studies that reported harms of HCC screening were also included. Pooled risk ratio (RR), according to HCC screening status, was calculated for each benefit outcome (e.g., HCC mortality, survival rate, proportion of early HCC), using head-to-head meta-analysis. The harmful outcomes (e.g., proportion of physiological harms provided by non-comparative studies were pooled by prevalence of meta-analysis. Analysis on publication bias and quality of life, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were also conducted. Results: We included 70 studies, including four random clinical trials (RCTs), 63 cohort studies,three case series studies. The meta-analysis of RCTs showed HCC screening was significantly associated with reduced HCC mortality (RR [risk ratio], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.96]; Conclusion: The existing evidence suggests HCC screening is more effective than non-screening in high-risk population. However, harms of screening should not be ignored.

Indexed as

BenefitsHarmsHepatocellular carcinomaMeta-analysisScreening

Identifiers

PMID39035193
PMCPMC11256723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.