SynthesisJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2025
Meta-analysis of liver venous deprivation vs portal vein embolization in treating liver cancer with an insufficient liver remnant.
Synthesis in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 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.
- Multidisciplinary Management of Hepatic Metastasis from Submandibular Gland Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma: A Case Report and Comprehensive Literature Review.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of liver venous deprivation (LVD) compared with portal vein embolization (PVE) in promoting compensatory liver hypertrophy and improving surgical resectability in liver cancer patients with insufficient future liver remnant (FLR).
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify clinical studies comparing the efficacy and safety of LVD and PVE. Following quality assessment and data extraction, a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan version 5.4.
resultsIn total, 13 studies involving 761 patients were included. Meta-analysis revealed that compared with PVE, LVD significantly increased the FLR growth rate after embolization (mean difference (MD) = 24.57, 95% CI, 15.49-33.66, p < 0.01) and the daily FLR volume (MD = 4.30, 95% CI, 0.23-8.36, p = 0.04), shortened the interval to surgery (MD = -5.28, 95% CI, -7.49 to -3.07, p < 0.01) and operation time (MD = -42.54, 95% CI, -79.98 to -5.11, p = 0.03), improved the resection completion rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.73, 95% CI, 1.12-2.66, p = 0.01), and reduced the incidence of postoperative liver failure (OR = 0.45, 95% CI, 0.2-0.85, p = 0.01). Additionally, LVD was associated with lower recurrence (OR = 0.16, 95% CI, 0.03-0.93, p = 0.04) and 90-day mortality rates (OR = 0.16, 95% CI, 0.03-0.93, p = 0.04).
conclusionLVD demonstrates a superior performance over PVE in several key clinical outcomes and holds promise as a potential alternative for patients requiring preoperative FLR augmentation. However, further high-quality randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate its long-term efficacy and safety.
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.