Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40980780›Full record

ReviewJournal of hepatocellular carcinoma2025

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews on Treatments for Liver Cancer: A Cross-sectional Study.

Billy Z Z Cheng, Betty H Wang, Claire Chenwen Zhong, Yuning Zhang, Fai Fai Ho, Vincent C H Chung

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Billy Z Z ChengDepartment of Administration, Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Betty H WangJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China.
Claire Chenwen ZhongJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China.
Yuning ZhangJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China.
Fai Fai HoSchool of Chinese Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0003-0525-2621
Vincent C H ChungJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are indispensable for presenting reliable evidence of the effectiveness of treatments. However, methodological flaws can affect their reliability and validity. Aim: This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs on liver cancer (LC) treatments and identify potential factors affecting their reliability. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was carried out on four databases to identify eligible SRs published between January 2014 and October 2023. We appraised the methodological quality of included SRs by Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool. Multivariable regression analysis was employed to investigate the factors influencing the methodological quality. Results: A total of 119 SRs were included and appraised. Only one SR (0.8%) was rated as high overall quality. One (0.8%), nine (7.6%), and 108 (90.8%) were appraised as moderate, low, and critical low quality, respectively. SRs published more recently, with higher journal impact factors, or with corresponding author from Europe have better performance. Conclusion: The methodological quality of SRs on LC treatments was unsatisfactory. Future SR authors should improve quality of SRs through registering an a priori protocol, providing explanation for selection of study designs, using a comprehensive literature search strategy, listing all excluded studies and justifying their reasons, describing the included studies in adequate detail, and reporting funding resources of primary studies.

Indexed as

biascross-sectional studyliver cancermeta-analysissystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID40980780
PMCPMC12450053

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.