Observational studyCardiovascular and interventional radiology2025
Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Thoracoscopic Sublobar Resection for the Treatment of Pulmonary Ground Glass Nodules: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Observational study in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research status and trend of lung cancer ablation therapy: a bibliometric analysis from 2002 to 2025.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Case Report: Delayed appearance of the ablation margin after CT-guided microwave ablation of a solid pulmonary nodule.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeA variety of treatments options for pulmonary ground glass nodules (GGNs) are currently under investigation. This study aimed to retrospectively compare the safety and efficacy of two therapeutic concepts, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and thoracoscopic sublobar resection, in the treatment of patients with resectable pulmonary GGNs. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis bi-center retrospective study included patients with resectable pulmonary GGNs who received either thoracoscopic sublobar resection or percutaneous computed tomography (CT)-guided RFA. Patients' clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups.
resultsBetween November 2019 and June 2023, a total of 71 patients were included, with 34 patients undergoing CT-guided RFA after refusing surgery, and 37 patients receiving thoracoscopic sublobar resection. No local recurrence or distant metastasis was observed in either group during the follow-up period (24 (interquartile range, 17.5-34.0) months for sublobectomy group and 30 (interquartile range, 17.5-38.75) months for RFA group). Compared to the thoracoscopic sublobar resection group, the RFA group had significantly fewer postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, particularly a lower incidence of pleural effusion (P < 0.001). The overall hospital stay length was also significantly shorter in the RFA patients (1 day versus 8 days, P < 0.001).
conclusionsThis limited series suggests that percutaneous CT-guided RFA may be a safe and effective treatment option for patients with resectable pulmonary GGNs who refuse surgical intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39994026What 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.