ReviewSeminars in interventional radiology2019
Radiofrequency Ablation, Where It Stands in Interventional Radiology Today.
Review in Seminars in interventional radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is one of the first developed minimally invasive definitive cancer therapies. The safety and efficacy of RFA is well documented and has led to its incorporation into multiple international societal guidelines. By expanding on the body of knowledge acquired during the clinical use of RFA, alternative ablative technologies have emerged and are successfully competing for locoregional therapy market share. The adaption of newer ablative technologies is leading to a rapid decline in the utilization of RFA by interventional radiologists despite the lack of proven superiority. In their 2010 article, Hong and Georgiades stated "… RFA is likely to remain the mainstay of ablations for small tumors until sufficient experience emerges for the widespread acceptance for alternative ablative modalities." Within a decade of this publication, has this time arrived?
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.