SynthesisUpdates in surgery2026
Does adjuvant therapy improve survival in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for distal cholangiocarcinoma? A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.
Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2026. 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.
- Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and pancreatic surgery in the 21st century: triumphs, turning points, and unresolved challenges.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
- The role of resection margin status on recurrence and selection of patients for adjuvant radiotherapy in distal cholangiocarcinoma.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
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
The role of adjuvant therapy (AT) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for distal cholangiocarcinoma (DC) remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of AT on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with resected DC. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42024561780). PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 and August 2023. Eligible studies included patients who underwent PD for DC, comparing AT to follow-up (FUP) alone. Primary endpoints were OS and DFS, analyzed using hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-regression explored potential sources of heterogeneity. The analysis included 22 studies with 7078 patients (3860 FUP group, 3218 AT group): of the studies, only 3 (13.6%) were RCTs (even if none of them was specifically designed for DC). AT significantly improved OS (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.89; p < 0.001) and DFS (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74-0.96; p = 0.023) compared to FUP. Subgroup analysis showed a greater benefit for chemo-radiotherapy (OS HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.72-0.91) over chemotherapy alone (OS HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.64-0.94). High heterogeneity (I
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.