SynthesisEndocrine2025
Radiofrequency ablation versus laparoscopic adrenalectomy for aldosterone-producing adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Endocrine, 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.
- Primary aldosteronism.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2026Review
- Ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation versus laparoscopic adrenalectomy for unilateral isolated aldosterone-producing adenoma: a two-center retrospective study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of radiofrequency ablation (Ablation) and laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) for treating patients with aldosterone-producing adenomas (APA).
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple databases from inception to April 2024. Randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies comparing Ablation and LA for APA were included. Data on efficacy, safety, and other relevant outcomes were extracted and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
resultsTen studies with 887 patients (414 in the Ablation group, 473 in the LA group) were included. Pooled analysis showed comparable clinical success rates (74.2% in Ablation vs. 82% in LA, p = 0.52) but a significantly higher rate of hypertension crises in the Ablation group (16.4 vs. 3%, p < 0.0001). Resolution of hypertension was more frequent in the LA group (44 vs. 27.2%, p = 0.003). Ablation was associated with lower intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stays. Still, no significant differences were found in the resolution of primary aldosteronism, complication rates, blood pressure reduction, or medication usage.
conclusionsBoth Ablation and LA demonstrate comparable efficacy in treating APA, with Ablation offering advantages in terms of lower intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stay. However, Ablation may be associated with a higher rate of hypertension crises during the procedure. The results suggest that Ablation is not yet a substitute for LA. A personalized approach considering patient-specific factors and institutional expertise is warranted when selecting the appropriate treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40180784What 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.