ReviewCancers2026
Prognostic Scores for Liver Resection in Colorectal Metastases: Performance, Limitations, and Methodological Pitfalls-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 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.
- CT-based radiomics improves survival prediction in colorectal liver metastases: beyond clinical scores.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Liver metastases beyond classical imaging findings.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe prediction of survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases is crucial for planning treatment strategies. Several prognostic scores have been proposed, but their reliability is debated. The present study aims to review available prognostic scores, focusing on their performance and the methodological approaches adopted for their evaluation.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database, including studies published between January 2015 and June 2024. Only English-language studies reporting the external validation of prognostic models were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed.
resultsOverall, 48 prognostic scores were externally validated across 48 studies (
conclusionsThe current survival prediction relies on scores with low reliability (C-index ≤ 0.65). Despite the abundance of available data, their heterogeneity and variable quality have limited their usability. Future research should prioritize the development of new prognostic tools and the standardization of prognostic modeling and reporting.
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.