SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
Meta-analysis: accuracy of the Baveno VI criteria for the diagnosis of high-risk varices in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Synthesis 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim: Diagnosing high-risk varices (HRV) is crucial for determining the prognosis and treatment strategy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although the Baveno VI consensus guidelines have been validated for assessing HRV in patients with liver cirrhosis, their applicability to those with HCC remains uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Baveno VI criteria in screening for HRV in patients with HCC. Methods: We searched for English-language articles related to Baveno criteria and HCC across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, covering publications from their inception until April 19, 2024. Our meta-analysis was conducted using STATA 14.0 and Meta-Disc 1.4 software. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. We analyzed pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) using a random-effects model and constructed a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Based on established consensus, the favorable Baveno VI criteria were defined as a liver stiffness measurement (LSM) < 20 kPa and a platelet count (PLT) > 150×10 Results: We finally brought four studies, including 1277 patients with HCC, into this meta-analysis. The SEN, SPE, DOR, and AUC of favorable Baveno VI criteria in screening HRV in patients with HCC were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81-0.95), 0.33 (95% CI: 0.25-0.41), 4.44 (95% CI: 2.14-9.22), and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.55-0.64), respectively. The LR+ and LR- of the favorable Baveno VI criteria were 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19-1.50) and 0.30 (95% CI: 0.16-0.58), respectively. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses indicated that BCLC and Child-Pugh stages likely contribute to the heterogeneity in the SPE. Conclusions: The favorable Baveno VI criteria may not effectively screen HRV in patients with HCC. However, the current evidence is insufficient, and further studies with larger sample sizes and detailed patient subgroups are needed. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024533946.
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.