Network meta-analysis of the prognosis of curative treatment strategies for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy

doi:10.4240/wjgs.v15.i2.258

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 15, Issue 2

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Supplementary Materials of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (3029)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-5) series, Tables (1-5) series.

Item

Count

PDF

163

WORD

HTML

1455

Figures (1-5)

227

Tables (1-5)

256

Sum=2140

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

204

Download

685

Sum=889

Feb 27, 2023 (publication date) through Feb 17, 2025

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (0)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

ISSN

1948-9366

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Meta-Analysis

World J Gastrointest Surg. Feb 27, 2023; 15(2): 258-272
Published online Feb 27, 2023. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v15.i2.258

Table 3 Meta-regression analysis for comparison of subgroups

Subgroup	β	SE	95%CI		Z value	P value
Subgroup	β	SE	Lower limit	Upper limit	Z value	P value
1-yr DFS
Intercept	0.658	0.177	0.311	1.005	3.720	< 0.001
LT vs RH	0.930¹	0.283	0.376	1.485	3.290	0.001
RFA vs RH	-0.315	0.272	-0.848	0.217	-1.160	0.246
TACE vs RH	-1.823	0.447	-2.699	-0.946	-4.080	< 0.001
3-yr DFS
Intercept	-0.353	0.212	-0.769	0.063	-1.660	0.096
RFA vs RH	-0.609	0.335	-1.266	0.049	-1.810	0.070
TACE vs RH	-2.235	0.751	-3.707	-0.763	-2.980	0.003
LT vs RH	1.181¹	0.322	0.550	1.812	3.670	< 0.001
5-yr DFS
Intercept	-0.748	0.216	-1.171	-0.325	-3.460	0.001
RFA vs RH	-0.834	0.366	-1.552	-0.116	-2.280	0.023
TACE vs RH	-0.762	0.577	-1.893	0.369	-1.320	0.186
LT vs RH	1.258¹	0.324	0.623	1.893	3.880	< 0.001
1-yr OS
Intercept	2.185	0.208	1.777	2.594	10.480	< 0.001
LT vs RH	-0.036¹	0.332	-0.687	0.614	-0.110	0.913
RFA vs RH	-0.041	0.325	-0.677	0.596	-0.130	0.900
TACE vs RH	-0.614	0.332	-1.264	0.036	-1.850	0.064
3-yr OS
Intercept	0.996	0.162	0.679	1.313	6.150	< 0.001
RFA vs RH	-0.394	0.251	-0.885	0.098	-1.570	0.116
TACE vs RH	-1.114	0.287	-1.676	-0.551	-3.880	< 0.001
LT vs RH	0.040¹	0.265	-0.479	0.558	0.150	0.881
5-yr OS
Intercept	0.204	0.185	-0.158	0.565	1.100	0.270
RFA vs RH	-0.317	0.293	-0.890	0.257	-1.080	0.279
TACE vs RH	-0.917	0.328	-1.559	-0.275	-2.800	0.005
LT vs RH	0.392¹	0.298	-0.192	0.975	1.320	0.188

¹Best treatment option.

DFS: Disease-free survival; LT: Liver transplantation; OS: Overall survival; RFA: Radiofrequency ablation; RH: Repeated hepatectomy; SE: Standard error; TACE: Transarterial chemoembolization.

Citation: Chen JL, Chen YS, Ker CG. Network meta-analysis of the prognosis of curative treatment strategies for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy. World J Gastrointest Surg 2023; 15(2): 258-272
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v15/i2/258.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v15.i2.258