ReviewCureus2025
Long-Term Survival and Recurrence After Liver Transplantation Versus Resection in Cirrhotic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical treatments for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: Resection versus transplantation.Global health & medicine · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review evaluates and compares the long-term survival and recurrence outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) versus liver resection (LR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and underlying cirrhosis. A comprehensive search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines across PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, yielding 415 articles, of which four high-quality meta-analyses were included based on predefined eligibility criteria. The included studies encompassed tens of thousands of patients and consistently demonstrated that LT offers superior overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), along with significantly lower recurrence rates, when compared to LR. Subgroup analyses revealed that the survival advantage of LT is more pronounced in patients within the Milan criteria or those with multifocal disease, while outcomes of LR improved over time, particularly in cases with solitary tumors and structured postoperative surveillance. The review also highlights the influence of geographic disparities, institutional practices, and healthcare resource availability on treatment selection and outcomes. Quality assessment using the AMSTAR 2 tool confirmed that three studies were of high quality with low risk of bias, while one was of moderate quality. These findings support the use of LT as the preferred treatment for eligible patients, while acknowledging LR as a valuable alternative in specific clinical scenarios, particularly where organ availability is limited.
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.