Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent liver cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 19-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Long Peng ◽  
Zhiyong Zhou ◽  
Weidong Xiao ◽  
Xiaoyun Hu ◽  
Jiaqing Cao ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 48 (14) ◽  
pp. 2125-2136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Liu ◽  
Chung-Chou H. Chang ◽  
Gary M. Marsh ◽  
Felicia Wu

Liver Cancer ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamal Rahmani ◽  
Hamed Kord Varkaneh ◽  
Vasileios  Kontogiannis ◽  
Paul M. Ryan ◽  
Hiba Bawadi ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. e13151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guang-Tao Min ◽  
Yu-Min Li ◽  
Nan Yao ◽  
Jun Wang ◽  
Hong-Peng Wang ◽  
...  

Gut and Liver ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 792-807 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hana Park ◽  
Seung Kak Shin ◽  
Ijin Joo ◽  
Do Seon Song ◽  
Jeong Won Jang ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maomao Cao ◽  
He Li ◽  
Dianqin Sun ◽  
Siyi He ◽  
Yadi Zheng ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Prediction of liver cancer risk is beneficial to define high-risk population of liver cancer and guide clinical decisions. We aimed to review and critically appraise the quality of existing risk-prediction models for liver cancer. Methods This systematic review followed the guidelines of CHARMS (Checklist for Critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta (PRISMA). We searched for PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to July 2020. Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool was used to assess the risk of bias of all potential articles. A narrative description and meta-analysis were conducted. Results After removal irrespective and duplicated citations, 20 risk prediction publications were finally included. Within the 20 studies, 15 studies performed model derivation and validation process, three publications only conducted developed procedure without validation and two articles were used to validate existing models. Discrimination was expressed as area under curve or C statistic, which was acceptable for most models, ranging from 0.64 to 0.96. Calibration of the predictions model were rarely assessed. All models were graded at high risk of bias. The risk bias of applicability in 13 studies was considered low. Conclusions This systematic review gives an overall review of the prediction risk models for liver cancer, pointing out several methodological issues in their development. No prediction risk models were recommended due to the high risk of bias.Systematic review registration: This systematic has been registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systemic Review: CRD42020203244).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document