Publications
Explore our published research. Select a publication to read more and open its DOI link when available.
Research-based Statistics, Data Science and Computing guidance for learners, researchers, and professionals.
Explore our published research. Select a publication to read more and open its DOI link when available.
Get top articles every week directly to your inbox.
Abstract Objectives To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) who underwent portal vein embolisation followed by liver resection (PVEfLR) with those who underwent other treatment strategies. Design Rapid review of the literature retrieved through a systematic search. Data sources Electronic databases PubMed, Embase and Ovid MEDLINE were searched from 1 April 2014 to 31 December 2025. Eligibility criteria Studies were included if they involved only patients with CRLM, applied PVEfLR and reported comparative outcomes against other interventions (eg, associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS), liver transplantation and portal vein ligation). Only randomised controlled trials, cohort and case–control studies published in English were included. Studies that included patients other than those with CRLM were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis Two authors independently screened records, extracted data and assessed quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were narratively synthesised and presented in summary tables. Results 14 studies (n=2,022 patients) were included. The overall median survival time for the PVEfLR group was similar to that of the ALPPS group but significantly lower than that of the liver transplantation group (19 vs 41 months, p=0.007). Postoperative complications were significantly lower for PVEfLR than for ALPPS (27% vs 65%, p<0.05) but higher than for liver resection without portal vein embolisation (51% vs 36%, p<0.001). The future liver remnant growth and completion rates for PVEfLR were variable compared with those of other techniques. Conclusions PVEfLR is an effective strategy for converting selected patients with initially unresectable CRLM to resectable status, achieving long-term survival comparable to other complex techniques such as ALPPS, although with a different perioperative risk profile. The choice of technique should be individualised based on the patient’s anatomy, disease burden and institutional expertise.
View detailsAbstract Background The epidemiology of injury in soccer has traditionally focused on soccer players, rather than match officials. Although injury data on referees exist, no comprehensive review has summarized injury profiles in this population. Objective To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of injury epidemiology in elite and amateur soccer referees, focusing on injury rates, types, locations, severity, and causes. Methods PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus, covering their entire history up to 19 April 2025 were searched. This review included prospective and retrospective studies reporting injury incidence or prevalence among football match officials, with a study period of at least one season. Studies needed to specify injury definitions and include data on injury location, type, mechanism, or severity. Both male and female officials were eligible. Systematic reviews, commentaries, and letters were excluded. Study quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the STROBE-SIIS, in addition to the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and funnel plots. Injury incidence rates were estimated using a random effects Poisson regression, accounting for heterogeneity and moderators. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. Results A total of 17 studies were included, encompassing 3621 referees. The most frequent injuries were strains and sprains in the knee and ankle. The overall injury incidence was 2.19 injuries per 1000 h of exposure (95% CI 1.30–3.69). On-field referees experienced an incidence rate of 1.46 injuries per 1000 h of exposure (95% CI 0.76–2.81), while assistant referees had a lower rate of 0.84 per 1 h of exposure (95% CI 0.36–1.97). During matches, the injury incidence was 2.24 per 1000 h of exposure (95% CI 1.38–3.64), compared with 0.67 injuries per 1000 h of exposure during training sessions (95% CI 0.36–1.24). However, despite sensitivity analysis, there were still high levels of heterogeneity across included studies. Conclusions Findings noted higher injury incidence during matches compared with training, and on-field referees compared with assistants. The variation in injury profiles highlights the importance of implementing targeted preventive strategies tailored to the unique demands of refereeing. However, there is still a lack of research in this population, especially in female referees.
Research-based Statistics, Data Science and Computing guidance for learners, researchers, and professionals.