This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of sorafenib, with or without co-interventions, versus placebo, no intervention, or the same co-interventions for adults, aged 18 and over, with hepatocellular carcinoma.
This evaluation did not establish enough distinct central claims to display a claim list.
Strengths
The protocol includes multiple international and Chinese databases, trial registries, grey literature, and author contact. Screening and extraction are planned independently in duplicate with disagreement resolution.
↳ Search methods; Selection of studies; Data extraction and management
Outcome-level RoB 2 assessments will inform GRADE and summary-of-findings tables, with sensitivity analyses excluding trials at elevated risk of bias.
↳ Assessment of risk of bias; Sensitivity analysis; Summary of findings
The rationale discusses the null STORM trial and prior reviews reporting limited efficacy in selected treatment settings, alongside favourable evidence.
↳ How the intervention might work; Why it is important to do this review
Limitations
The article supplies a review protocol, not pooled effects or certainty judgments about sorafenib. It therefore cannot yet resolve the clinical uncertainties motivating the review.
↳ Abstract; Objectives
The rationale identifies narrower scopes and possible omissions in earlier reviews without a systematic comparison of their coverage. This limits how precisely the protocol establishes its distinct added value.
↳ Why it is important to do this review
Subgroup analyses are planned for seven outcomes and require adequate numbers of contributing trials. Their feasibility across the proposed comparisons remains uncertain.
↳ Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity
The protocol's methodological standing rests on broad searching, independent duplicate review processes, and an explicit connection between outcome-level bias assessment and certainty grading. These are substantive planning strengths, although the search appendix is unavailable here and subgroup analyses depend on sufficient trial data. The proposed breadth provides a credible contribution, but the rationale does not systematically map earlier review omissions and no new synthesis findings are delivered. Its clinical relevance is clear, while actionable guidance remains contingent on the completed review.
Nabu’s assessment, alongside the field’s view.
Are you an author of this paper?
Strong4.0
Confidence mediumThe protocol contributes a broader review architecture spanning sorafenib alone and multiple co-interventions. Its added value over previous reviews is argued narratively, and it does not yet deliver a synthesis that resolves treatment uncertainty.
The planned methods combine broad searching, independent duplicate review processes, outcome-level RoB 2, and explicit GRADE integration. Subgroup feasibility across seven outcomes remains uncertain, while unavailable search strategies limit verification rather than establish a methodological failure.
The clinical rationale, objective, eligibility criteria, and analytic sequence are followable, with intentions distinguished from achieved findings. Dense methods prose and ambitious comprehensive-scope language modestly temper readability and precision.
The background engages both supportive and contrary evidence, including the null STORM trial and qualified prior review findings. The remaining limitation is the absence of a systematic comparison demonstrating precisely what earlier reviews omitted.
No concerns4 of 4 checks
The reported numbers and statistics are consistent with the stated results.
The protocol describes independent review processes and commits to reporting deviations in the completed review. Unavailable appendix-level search details and future risk-of-bias records are assessability gaps, not demonstrated transparency failures.
Preregistration: declared
189 references in manuscript 178 of 182 checkable references found in an index 6 are books, websites or datasets — counted, but not index-checkable 1 could not be checked — not the same as no match found 1 mistyped DOI matched to the cited work by its details
References not verified automatically are resolved manually within 24 hours.
No retraction or expression of concern found in Crossref (includes Retraction Watch).
Sources: Crossref (incl. Retraction Watch) ✓
Where this paper’s evidence sits on the path from initial observation to real-world use.
The planned certainty-graded synthesis has a direct route toward clinical guidance rather than a speculative application pathway. Readiness nevertheless requires completion of the review and interpretation of its eventual findings.
AI-generated, human-governed. Something look off? Contact us to request a review.
Keep reading
Other papers Nabu has evaluated blind, starting with the same field.
Majani, Chillo, Akida, et al. · 2025 · Clinical medicine
POX demonstrated a sensitivity of 50.0% (95% CI: 32.1-67.9), a specificity of 99.5% (95% CI: 99.4-99.7), a false-positive rate of 0.4%, and an overall accuracy of 99.5% (95% CI: 99.2-99.5)
TentativeNakamura, Yamazaki, Namikawa, et al. · 2026 · Clinical medicine
ORR by BICR was 22.6% (7/31), and the disease control rate was 54.8% (17/31).
SupportedWu, Alikhassi, Curpen · 2023 · Clinical medicine
Diagnostic accuracy improved exponentially with increased MRI experience (definition B, OR of 1.27 and 1.61 for 5 and 10 years, respectively, p = 0.03 for both).
Tentative