ReviewBMJ open2026
Impact of portal vein embolisation uses in colorectal liver metastases: evidence from a rapid review.
Review in BMJ open, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) who underwent portal vein embolisation followed by liver resection (PVEfLR) with those who underwent other treatment strategies.
designRapid review of the literature retrieved through a systematic search. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases PubMed, Embase and Ovid MEDLINE were searched from 1 April 2014 to 31 December 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they involved only patients with CRLM, applied PVEfLR and reported comparative outcomes against other interventions (eg, associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS), liver transplantation and portal vein ligation). Only randomised controlled trials, cohort and case-control studies published in English were included. Studies that included patients other than those with CRLM were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently screened records, extracted data and assessed quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were narratively synthesised and presented in summary tables.
results14 studies (n=2,022 patients) were included. The overall median survival time for the PVEfLR group was similar to that of the ALPPS group but significantly lower than that of the liver transplantation group (19 vs 41 months, p=0.007). Postoperative complications were significantly lower for PVEfLR than for ALPPS (27% vs 65%, p<0.05) but higher than for liver resection without portal vein embolisation (51% vs 36%, p<0.001). The future liver remnant growth and completion rates for PVEfLR were variable compared with those of other techniques.
conclusionsPVEfLR is an effective strategy for converting selected patients with initially unresectable CRLM to resectable status, achieving long-term survival comparable to other complex techniques such as ALPPS, although with a different perioperative risk profile. The choice of technique should be individualised based on the patient's anatomy, disease burden and institutional expertise.
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.