ReviewHealth science reports2025
Radiofrequency Ablation as an Alternative and Novel Procedure in the Intraepithelial Neoplasia Management: A Systematic Scoping Review.
Review in Health science 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has emerged as a promising minimally invasive technique for eliminating intraepithelial neoplasia (IEN). We reviewed current evidence investigating the role of RFA in managing different types of IEN. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to assess the current evidence for the use of RFA in managing various types of IEN. A three-step search strategy was employed, involving keyword extraction, comprehensive database searching (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar), and reference screening. Results: Thirty-two articles were included in this review, and most of the literature reported the features of RFA in the esophagus-related IENs (68.7%). RFA treatment was also found to effectively address gastric (9.3%), anal (12.5%), and cervical (9.3%) IENs. The general opinion on using RFA in Barrett's esophagus (BE) was its combination therapy with the endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) methods, which suggested better outcomes than RFA/EMR monotherapy. RFA was not preferred treatment for high-grade gastric dysplasia, but it was effective for the low-grade type. Conclusion: As a minimally invasive, safe, and effective procedure, RFA holds promise for addressing lesions associated with BE, gastric, anal, and cervical IEN; However, the scope and gaps related to RFA therapy require to be explored precisely.
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.