ReviewCureus2025
Effectiveness of Microwave Ablation for the Treatment of Epistaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
Epistaxis is a common condition that is often benign and does not require serious intervention. The use of microwave ablation (MWA) is a relatively new technique for treating epistaxis. This systematic review examines the efficacy and safety of using MWA to treat common nosebleeds. It was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Two databases, PubMed and EMBASE, were used to identify and aggregate articles for this systematic review. The search terms yielded a total of 2,691 articles with years ranging from 1947 to 2023. After screening, one case series, one randomized control trial, and five observational studies fit the inclusion criteria. Minimal complications were experienced by patients who underwent MWA treatment. A total of 876 patients underwent MWA, with 852 reporting no recurrence at 3 or 6 months, indicating a 97.3% success rate. Three of the seven studies were pooled in a meta-analysis, revealing a pooled log odds ratio of 2.05 (95% CI: 1.19-2.91; p = 0.00), indicating higher odds of recurrent bleeding with observation or silver nitrate versus MWA. In a study of 83 patients, the average pain score was 1.83 during the MWA procedure and decreased to 0.95 one hour afterward. Overall, MWA is a safe and effective treatment for epistaxis, with low rebleeding and complication rates. Further research and a meta-analysis comparing MWA with traditional treatments are recommended to enhance our understanding.
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.