ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparing the efficacy and safety of cryoablation and microwave ablation in treating paravertebral metastases of rabbit VX2 tumor.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We sought to assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of cryoablation (CA) and microwave ablation (MWA) in treating paravertebral metastases of VX2 in rabbits. A rabbit VX2 paravertebral metastases model was established under computed tomography (CT) guidance, with a modeling success rate of 88.23% (60/68). Sixty successfully modeled rabbits were randomly allocated into the MWA group (n = 30) and CA group (n = 30). A comparative analysis between the CA and MWA groups included assessments of the complete ablation rate, operation time, post-ablation pain, and complication rate. The complete ablation rate in the CA group (86.67%) was higher than that in the MWA group (63.33%) (P < 0.05), and the operation time in the CA group was notably longer than that in the MWA group (P < 0.05). The BRPS ( Bristol Rabbit Pain Scale)scores in both groups decreased at 5 time points after treatment, the post-treatment points scores in the CA group were lower than those in the MWA group (P < 0.001). At a follow-up of 21 days postoperatively, the complication rate in the CA group (10.00%) was significantly lower than that in the MWA group (33.33%) (P < 0.05), with 6 rabbits in the MWA group experiencing severe complications. Compared to MWA, CA for paravertebral metastases demonstrates higher efficacy and 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.