Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 536

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Needle track seeding following biopsy of liver lesions in the diagnosis of hepatocellular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Silva, M A, Hegab, B, Hyde, C, Guo, B, Buckels, J A C, Mirza, D F·2008·Gut

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Needle biopsy of a suspicious liver lesion could guide management in the setting of equivocal imaging and serology, although it is not recommended generally because there is the possibility of tumour dissemination outside the liver. The incidence of needle track seeding following biopsy of a suspicious liver lesion is ill-defined, however. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies published before March 2007 was performed. Studies that reported on needle tract seeding following biopsy of suspicious liver lesions were identified. Lesions suspected of being hepatocelleular cancer (HCC) were considered. Data on the type of needle biopsy, diagnosis, incidence of needle track seeding duration to seeding, follow-up and impact on outcome were tabulated. RESULTS: Eight studies identified by systematic review on biopsy of HCC were included in a meta-analysis. The pooled estimate of a patient with seeding per 100 patients with HCC was 0.027 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.018 to 0.040). There was no difference whether a fixed or random effects model was used. Q was 4.802 with 7 degrees of freedom, p = 0.684; thus the observed heterogeneity was compatible with variation by chance alone. The pooled estimate of a patient with seeding per 100 patients per year was 0.009 (95% CI 0.006 to 0.013), p = 0.686. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we have shown that the incidence of needle tract tumour seeding following biopsy of a HCC is 2.7% overall, or 0.9% per year.

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 · 10.1136/gut.2008.149062

Cites

19 of 19 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 19 references

Cited by

See all 536

Metadata

Authors
Silva, M. A., Hegab, B., Hyde, C., Guo, B., Buckels, J. A. C., & Mirza, D. F.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-07-31
Volume
57
Issue
11
Pages
1592-1596
ISSN
0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2101562189
Cited by
536
References
19
FWCI
2.48
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: Needle track seeding following biopsy of liver lesions in the diagnosis of hepatocellular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2008.149062
The paper
Silva, M. A., Hegab, B., Hyde, C., Guo, B., Buckels, J. A. C., & Mirza, D. F. (2008). Needle track seeding following biopsy of liver lesions in the diagnosis of hepatocellular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2008.149062

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.