ArticlePolish journal of radiology2016
Irreversible Electroporation (IRE): Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria for Analysis and Comparison.
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- The role of pulsed electric field therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a narrative review of a novel minimally invasive intervention.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Irreversible electroporation versus radiofrequency ablation for malignant hepatic tumor: A prospective single-center double-arm trial.Journal of interventional medicine · 2022Article
- Modeling of a single bipolar electrode with tines for irreversible electroporation delivery.Computers in biology and medicine · 2022Article
- Novel irreversible electroporation ablation (Nano-knife) versus radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of solid liver tumors: a comparative, randomized, multicenter clinical study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Alternative methods for local ablation-interventional pulmonology: a narrative review.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Review
- Article
- Electroporation-Based Treatments in Urology.Cancers · 2020Review
- Conductivity Rise During Irreversible Electroporation: True Permeabilization or Heat?Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2018Article
- Reporting guidelines for oncology research: helping to maximise the impact of your research.British journal of cancer · 2018Review
- Small renal carcinoma: the "when" and "how" of operation, active surveillance, and ablation.Polish journal of radiology · 2018Review
- Article
- Irreversible electroporation of hepatocellular carcinoma: patient selection and perspectives.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2017Review
- Pulse Parameters and Thresholds for (ir)Reversible Electroporation on Hepatocellular Carcinoma CellsTechnology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
- Temperature Distribution on Classical Two Needles IRE Setup Versus a Single Needle Prototype.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
- A Retrospective Comparison of CT Imaging and Computational Simulations of Irreversible Electroporation in the Liver.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIrreversible electroporation (IRE) as newer ablation modality has been introduced and its clinical niche is under investigation. At present just one IRE system has been approved for clinical use and is currently commercially available (NanoKnife® system). In 2014, the International Working Group on Image-Guided Tumor Ablation updated the recommendation about standardization of terms and reporting criteria for image-guided tumor ablation. The IRE method is not covered in detail. But the non-thermal IRE method and the NanoKnife System differ fundamentally from established ablations techniques, especially thermal approaches, e.g. radio frequency ablation (RFA). MATERIAL/
methodsAs numerous publications on IRE with varying terminology exist so far - with numbers continuously increasing - standardized terms and reporting criteria of IRE are needed urgently. The use of standardized terminology may then allow for a better inter-study comparison of the methodology applied as well as results achieved.
resultsThus, the main objective of this document is to supplement the updated recommendation for image-guided tumor ablation by outlining a standardized set of terminology for the IRE procedure with the NanoKnife Sytem as well as address essential clinical and technical informations that should be provided when reporting on IRE tumor ablation.
conclusionsWe emphasize that the usage of all above recommended reporting criteria and terms can make IRE ablation reports comparable and provide treatment transparency to assess the current value of IRE and provide further development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.