ArticleWorld journal of clinical oncology2025
Navigating the evidence for hepatocellular carcinoma treatment: Surgery
Article in World journal of clinical oncology, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is among the most aggressive primary liver cancers, leading to significant global mortality. While early diagnosis improves prognosis, treatment decisions, particularly between surgical resection and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), remain controversial.
aimTo clarify this issue using sentiment analysis of medical literature alongside a meta-analysis of overall survival (OS).
methodsWe included studies comparing liver resection and RFA, excluding case reports, editorials, and studies without relevant outcomes. A systematic search in PubMed and Web of Science identified 197 studies. Abstracts underwent sentiment analysis using Python's Natural Language Toolkit library, categorizing them as favoring resection, ablation, or neutral. We also performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model on 11 studies reporting hazard ratios (HRs) for OS.
resultsSentiment analysis revealed that 75.1% of abstracts were neutral, 14.2% favored resection, and 10.7% favored RFA. The meta-analysis showed a significant survival advantage for liver resection, with a pooled HR of 0.5924 (95% confidence interval: 0.540-0.649). Heterogeneity was moderate (
conclusionThe study emphasizes the need for clinicians to prioritize robust statistical evidence over narrative impressions. Liver resection remains the preferred treatment for HCC in eligible patients.
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.