SynthesisPloS one2025
Liver transplantation for NASH-related hepatocellular carcinoma versus non-NASH etiologies of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Resmetirom and Efruxifermin for Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatohepatitis: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2026Review
- Transforming Liver Cancer Therapy: Integrating Molecular Profiling with Precision and Transplant-Based Care.Cancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)-associated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been emerging a predominant reason for liver transplantation (LT). The complexity of comorbidities in this population increases the possibility of poor transplant outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences in survival after transplantation among patients with NASH HCC and those with non-NASH HCC.
methodWe conducted systematic searches of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. To analyze the data, both fixed and random-effects models were employed to aggregate hazard ratios (HRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes. This study is registered with PROSPERO as CRD42024578441.
resultsA total of seven studies were included in this study. This study revealed that there was no significant difference in OS between liver transplant recipients with NASH HCC and those with non-NASH HCC. The RFS of NASH HCC patients were significantly longer. The HRs were 0.70 (95% CI: 0.51-0.97, P = 0.03) for RFS and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.72-1.07, P = 0.21) for OS, respectively.
conclusionThis study indicates that patients with NASH HCC who undergo LT have comparable OS as those with non-NASH HCC, while NASH HCC was associated with increased RFS. However, further research in randomized trials is necessary to verify these results and address potential selection biases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.