ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2021
A systematic review and meta-analysis of radio frequency ablation and routine resection in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2021. 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.
- Radiofrequency ablation has similar short-term effects but significantly lowers the long-term effect compared with routine resection in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study sought to conduct a meta-analysis of the relevant literature on radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and routine resection in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma (SHCC) in recent years, and to examine the clinical efficacy and safety of different schemes.
methodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Chinese biomedical literature, VIP Chinese journal and the Wanfang Database were used to comprehensively search for relevant papers on clinical control studies of RFA and the routine resection SHCC published between January 2008 and December 2019. The clinical efficacy and safety of different schemes in the treatment of SHCC were compared, including the overall survival rate within 1, 3, and 5 years, and the incidence of complications during treatment. A meta-analysis was undertaken using methods provided by the Cochrane Collaboration and RevMan 5.3 software.
resultsA total of 13 publications of studies were retrieved in which 2,384 patients participated. Of these patients, 1,256 (52.68%) were allocated to the RFA group and 1,128 patients (47.32%) to the conventional resection group. The effect size of the 1-year overall survival rate for the two groups was odds ratio (OR): 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.43-1.38]; Z test: P=0.32. The effect size of the overall survival rate within 3 years was OR: 0.71 (95% CI, 0.48-1.05); Z test: P=0.07. The difference was not statistically significant. The 5-year overall survival rate of the RFA group and conventional resection group was OR: 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40-0.72). The OR value fell within the CI, excluding 1; Z test: P<0.0001. The difference was statistically significant. The incidence of complications in the RFA group during treatment was lower than that in the conventional resection group (OR: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.32-0.69). The OR value was within the CI, excluding 1; Z test: P=0.0002. The difference was statistically significant.
conclusionsThe short-term effect of RFA in the treatment of SHCC is basically the same as that of routine resection; however, the long-term effect is significantly lower than that of routine resection. RFA has a lower incidence of complications during treatment, and thus better clinical safety.
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.