Rapid Review

A rapid review is similar to a systematic review but completed within a shorter timeframe and narrower scope. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneous study designs, small sample sizes, and differing outcome reporting, so the synthesis was narrative. The review included 14 studies covering 2,022 patients with CRLM from eight countries. Most included studies were small and retrospective, and there were no randomised controlled trials directly comparing PVE with alternative techniques. Comparisons between PVEfLR and ALPPS or transplantation may be biased because ALPPS and transplantation outcomes are often reported per protocol rather than intent-to-treat. Inclusion of conference abstracts may have introduced bias because they lack full peer-reviewed methodological detail.