Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 277

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of steatosis as a risk factor in major hepatic resection

de Meijer, V E, Kalish, B T, Puder, M, IJzermans, J N M·2010·British Journal of Surgery
DOI 10.1002/bjs.7194
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The risk of major hepatic resection in patients with hepatic steatosis remains controversial. A meta-analysis was performed to establish the best estimate of the impact of steatosis on patient outcome following major hepatic surgery. Methods: A systematic search was performed following Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Risk ratios (RRs) for complication and mortality rates were calculated for patients with no, less than 30 per cent and at least 30 per cent steatosis, and a meta-analysis was carried out. Results: Of six observational studies identified, four including a total of 1000 patients were subjected to meta-analysis; two others were tabulated separately. Compared with patients without steatosis, those with less than 30 per cent and at least 30 per cent steatosis had a significantly increased risk of postoperative complications, with a RR of 1·53 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1·27 to 1·85) and 2·01 (1·66 to 2·44) respectively. Patients with at least 30 per cent steatosis had an increased risk of postoperative death (RR 2·79, 95 per cent c.i. 1·19 to 6·51). Conclusion: Patients with steatosis had an up to twofold increased risk of postoperative complications, and those with excessive steatosis had an almost threefold increased risk of death.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bjs.7194

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 37 references

Cited by

See all 277

Metadata

Authors
de Meijer, V. E., Kalish, B. T., Puder, M., & IJzermans, J. N. M.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2010-07-16
Volume
97
Issue
9
Pages
1331-1339
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
DOI
10.1002/bjs.7194
OpenAlex
W2070630275
Cited by
277
References
37
FWCI
2.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic review and meta-analysis of steatosis as a risk factor in major hepatic resection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.7194
The paper
de Meijer, V. E., Kalish, B. T., Puder, M., & IJzermans, J. N. M. (2010). Systematic review and meta-analysis of steatosis as a risk factor in major hepatic resection. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7194

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.