ArticleTranslational cancer research2021
Effectiveness and safety of focused ultrasound ablation surgery compared with radiofrequency ablation in primary hepatocellular carcinoma treatment: a meta-analysis.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness and safety of focused ultrasound ablation surgery (FUAS) for primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment has not been fully evaluated. This study analyzed the effectiveness and safety of FUAS compared to radiofrequency ablation (RFA).
methodsStudies published before November 1, 2020, in the following databases were analyzed: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, CqVip, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Biomedical (CBM) database. All publications were reviewed independently by two authors. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies examining the effectiveness and safety of FUAS and RFA were considered. RCTs and cohort studies' methodological quality were evaluated using the Cochrane collaboration tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively.
resultsA total of 6,597 records were identified, from which 3 cohort studies were selected for quantitative synthesis. All studies had relatively high methodological quality. The meta-analysis indicated that FUAS and RFA had comparable 3-month overall survival (OS) rates [risk ratio (RR): 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86 to 1.14], 6-month OS rates (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.29), and 1-year OS rates (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.11). Also, individual studies reported that the tumor response (reflected by tumor response and tumor ablation rate) and posttreatment complications were comparable between patients treated with FUAS and patients treated with RFA. Due to the limited number of studies reporting tumor response and posttreatment complications, further meta-analyses could not be conducted. DISCUSSION: FUAS and RFA were comparable in terms of effectiveness and safety in the treatment of primary HCC. However, current evidence is limited, and more prospective RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings.
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.