ArticleWorld journal of hepatology2025
Multivariable prognostic models for post-hepatectomy liver failure: An updated systematic review.
Article in World journal of hepatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Radiomics Beyond Radiology: Literature Review on Prediction of Future Liver Remnant Volume and Function Before Hepatic Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPartial hepatectomy continues to be the primary treatment approach for liver tumors, and post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) remains the most critical life-threatening complication following surgery.
aimTo comprehensively review the PHLF prognostic models developed in recent years and objectively assess the risk of bias in these models.
methodsThis review followed the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Three databases were searched from November 2019 to December 2022, and references as well as cited literature in all included studies were manually screened in March 2023. Based on the defined inclusion criteria, articles on PHLF prognostic models were selected, and data from all included articles were extracted by two independent reviewers. The PROBAST was used to evaluate the quality of each included article.
resultsA total of thirty-four studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Nearly all of the models (32/34, 94.1%) were developed and validated exclusively using private data sources. Predictive variables were categorized into five distinct types, with the majority of studies (32/34, 94.1%) utilizing multiple types of data. The area under the curve for the training models included ranged from 0.697 to 0.956. Analytical issues resulted in a high risk of bias across all studies included.
conclusionThe validation performance of the existing models was substantially lower compared to the development models. All included studies were evaluated as having a high risk of bias, primarily due to issues within the analytical domain. The progression of modeling technology, particularly in artificial intelligence modeling, necessitates the use of suitable quality assessment tools.
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.