Cochrane Review Group

Hepato-Biliary

132 systematic reviews in Hepato-Biliary ask 1,521 questions. 19.9% have no studies to answer them, 57.6% rest on very low certainty evidence and 5.7% reach moderate or high certainty.

Reviews

132

Questions

1,521

current versions

No studies

19.9%

Moderate or high

5.7%

No studies 303 · 19.9%Ungraded 39 · 2.6%Very low 876 · 57.6%Low 216 · 14.2%Moderate 65 · 4.3%High 22 · 1.4%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Search questions in Hepato-Biliary

Thinnest evidence

All no studies and very low questions

Question	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Microwave coagulation in addition to conventional transarterial chemoembolisation vs conventional transarterial chemoembolisation alone All‐cause mortality · people with liver metastases Microwave coagulation for liver metastases (2024) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Microwave coagulation vs conventional surgery Health‐related quality of life · people with liver metastases Microwave coagulation for liver metastases (2024) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Microwave coagulation vs conventional surgery Any adverse events or complications · people with liver metastases Microwave coagulation for liver metastases (2024) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	1 study · 30 participants	Very low
Microwave coagulation vs conventional surgery Disease‐free survival · people with liver metastases Microwave coagulation for liver metastases (2024) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	1 study · 30 participants	Very low
Microwave coagulation vs conventional surgery Failure to clear liver metastases · people with liver metastases Microwave coagulation for liver metastases (2024) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Microwave coagulation vs conventional surgery Recurrence of liver metastases · people with liver metastases Microwave coagulation for liver metastases (2024) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Microwave coagulation vs radiofrequency ablation All‐cause mortality · people with liver metastases Microwave coagulation for liver metastases (2024) · Cochrane	RR 0.62 [0.26, 1.47]	1 study · 50 participants	Very low
Microwave coagulation vs radiofrequency ablation Time to mortality (overall survival) · people with liver metastases Microwave coagulation for liver metastases (2024) · Cochrane	HR 0.63 [0.23, 1.73]	1 study · 50 participants	Very low
Microwave coagulation vs radiofrequency ablation Health‐related quality of life · people with liver metastases Microwave coagulation for liver metastases (2024) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Microwave coagulation vs radiofrequency ablation Any adverse events or complications · people with liver metastases Microwave coagulation for liver metastases (2024) · Cochrane	RR 0.19 [0.01, 3.67]	1 study · 50 participants	Very low
Microwave coagulation vs radiofrequency ablation Disease‐free survival · people with liver metastases Microwave coagulation for liver metastases (2024) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Microwave coagulation in addition to conventional transarterial chemoembolisation vs conventional transarterial chemoembolisation alone Time to mortality · people with liver metastases Microwave coagulation for liver metastases (2024) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies

Reviews 132

Laparoscopic surgical box model training for surgical trainees with no prior laparoscopic experience

Nagendran, M, Toon, CD, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014

Hepato-Biliary

Thinnest evidence

Reviews 132

Laparoscopic surgical box model training for surgical trainees with no prior laparoscopic experience

Aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs for chronic hepatitis C

Radiofrequency (thermal) ablation versus no intervention or other interventions for hepatocellular carcinoma

Surgical versus endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones

Interferon for interferon nonresponding and relapsing patients with chronic hepatitis C

Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with acute cholecystitis

T‐tube drainage versus primary closure after open common bile duct exploration

T‐tube drainage versus primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Routine abdominal drainage versus no abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Antiviral prophylaxis for the prevention of chronic hepatitis C virus in patients undergoing liver transplantation

Abdominal lift for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery

Day‐surgery versus overnight stay surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Antiviral interventions for liver transplant patients with recurrent graft infection due to hepatitis C virus

Miniports versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Percutaneous cholecystostomy for high‐risk surgical patients with acute calculous cholecystitis

Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for uncomplicated biliary colic

Ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis

Human recombinant activated factor VII for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with liver diseases

Pre‐operative biliary drainage for obstructive jaundice

Robot assistant versus human or another robot assistant in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Cardiopulmonary interventions to decrease blood loss and blood transfusion requirements for liver resection

Techniques of flushing and reperfusion for liver transplantation

Nutritional interventions for liver‐transplanted patients

Extended peginterferon plus ribavirin treatment for 72 weeks versus standard peginterferon plus ribavirin treatment for 48 weeks in chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 infected slow‐responder adult patients