SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2022
The efficacy and safety of thermal ablation for patients with lung malignancy: a meta-analysis of 12 studies in China.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- International Consensus on Severe Lung Cancer-The Second Edition.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Review
- Microwave ablation permits an effective and safe treatment for lung metastasis of parathyroid carcinoma: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Endocrine · 2025Article
- Survival after thermal ablation versus wedge resection for stage I non-small cell lung cancer < 1 cm and 1 to 2 cm: evidence from the US SEER database.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThermal ablation has been increasingly used in the treatment of lung cancer in recent years. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the therapeutic effect and safety of thermal ablation plus chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy alone in treating patients with lung malignancy in China based on current evidence.
methodsDatabases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for clinical reports. Additional literature search was also performed by searching the reference list of included studies and latest reviews. Raw data including objective response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, overall survival and the incidence of major complication were extracted and pooled.
resultsA total of 12 studies in China including 1282 patients with lung malignancy were included in this meta-analysis. The number of studies that reported data of objective response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, overall survival and major complication was 8, 7, 7, 6 and 7, respectively. The combination therapy of thermal ablation plus chemotherapy showed a significantly better efficacy in improving objective response rate (odds ratio = 2.73; P < 0.001) and disease control rate (odds ratio = 2.43; P < 0.001) as compared with chemotherapy alone. Thermal ablation was also a significant protective factor for progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.43; P < 0.001) and overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.49; P < 0.001). Besides, thermal ablation did not increase the risk of major complication (odds ratio = 0.75; P = 0.252).
conclusionThe present meta-analysis based on these studies in China suggested that thermal ablation is a promising technique to provide better disease response and survival outcomes for patients with lung malignancy. Thermal ablation is worth further promotion in treating lung malignancy and application in clinical practice.
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.