ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2025
Efficacy evaluation of minimally invasive particle implantation in treating head and neck malignancies under different guidance methods: a propensity score matching analysis study.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy of minimally invasive particle implantation guided by different methods for head and neck malignancies based on propensity-matched score analysis. MATERIALS AND
methods120 patients with head and neck malignant tumors treated in our hospital from January 2021 to December 2023 were selected. The patients were matched by Propensity Score Matching (PSM) method at 1:1 and finally included in Computed Tomography (CT) guidance group (n = 60) and 3D print guide group (n = 60).
resultsThe pain in the 3D print guide group was significantly lower than that in the CT guidance group at 3 days and 7 days after operation (P < 0.05). Preoperative tumor diameter, postoperative metastasis, and tissue edema were similar. However, the 3D printing guide group had smaller tumor diameters and fewer recurrences (P < 0.05). The 3D printing guide group also showed better curative effects and lower incidence of adverse reactions compared to the CT guidance group (P < 0.05), indicating its superiority in treatment safety and efficacy.
conclusionMinimally invasive particle implantation guided by a 3D-printed guide plate is safer and more effective than CT-guided treatment for head and neck malignancies. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.