ReviewOpen life sciences2024
The debate between electricity and heat, efficacy and safety of irreversible electroporation and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of liver cancer: A meta-analysis.
Review in Open life sciences, 2024. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Both irreversible electroporation (IRE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are viable ablation methods for localized treatment of liver tumors. We conducted a meta-analysis to access the efficacy and safety of IRE and RFA in liver cancer treatment. Clinical studies on IRE and RFA for the treatment of liver cancer were collected from PubMed and CNKI until June 2023. We screened the literature for ablation success rates at 1 month post-operation, extracting keywords such as "ablation success rate," "technical success rate," "recurrence rate," and "complication" for meta-analysis. A total of 37 articles were included: 24 related to RFA involving 1,685 cases and 13 related to IRE involving 524 cases. The results demonstrate that ablation success rates at post-operative 1 month for IRE and RFA were 86% (95% CI: 82-89%) and 87% (95% CI: 81-92%), respectively. Technical success rates were 96% (95% CI: 88-100%) and 99% (95% CI: 96-100%). In addition, the recurrence rate was 16% (95% CI: 12-22%) in RFA group and 16% (95% CI: 9-23%) in IRE group. In terms of safety, the RFA had a complication rate of 28% (95% CI: 10-50%) and the IRE had a rate of 26% (95% CI: 13-43%). In conclusion, IRE and RFA exhibit similar ablation success rates at 1 month post-operation and comparable complication rates, making them both safe and effective treatment options.
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.