ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Single-session radiofrequency ablation versus microwave ablation of predominantly solid benign thyroid nodules-a comparison after propensity score matching for initial nodule volumes and diameters.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe comparative efficacy of single-session radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus microwave ablation (MWA) for benign solid thyroid nodules remains unclear because existing literature consists of heterogenous baseline and wide range of nodule volumes. This study identified the predictors of volume reduction rate (VRR) of RFA versus MWA, and compared the efficacy between the two treatments. MATERIALS AND
methodsConsecutive benign nodules ≥ 80% solid, treated with a single session of RFA or MWA in a tertiary endocrine surgery center, with at least 12-month follow-up, were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) for baseline characteristics was performed to compare RFA vs MWA. The primary outcome was 12-month VRR.
resultsFrom 2021 to 2023, 208 nodules were analyzed (RFA: 142, MWA: 66). Maximum nodule diameter and initial nodule volume correlated with 12-month VRR (p < 0.001, correlation coefficient -0.360 and -0.322, respectively) of RFA but not MWA. PSM analysis for age, sex and maximum nodule diameter; or age, sex and initial nodule volume showed comparable overall 12-month VRR between RFA and MWA. In subgroup analysis, MWA achieved greater 3-month and 12-month (78.0% ± 15.5 vs 67.3% ± 17.6, p = 0.028) VRR for nodules with a maximum diameter ≥ 3.5 cm; and greater 6-month VRR for nodules with volume ≥ 20 mL (71.4% ± 16.7 vs 57.2% ± 16.1, p = 0.030). No significant complications occurred in either ablation modality.
conclusionLarger nodule diameter and volume negatively correlated with the treatment efficacy of single-session RFA, but not MWA. Single-session MWA achieved greater VRR for nodules with maximum diameter ≥ 3.5 cm, or volume ≥ 20 mL. The results of this study prompt confirmation by future randomized controlled trials with stratification by nodule volume. KEY POINTS: Question The comparative efficacy of single-session radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus microwave ablation (MWA) for benign solid thyroid nodules remains unclear and so are factors affecting treatment efficacy. Findings Larger nodule diameter and volume negatively correlated with efficacy of RFA. For smaller nodules, RFA and MWA were comparable. MWA may have better efficacy for larger nodules. Clinical relevance For smaller nodules (max diameter < 3.5 cm or volume < 20 mL), RFA and MWA were equally effective and safe. For larger nodules (max diameter ≥ 3.5 cm or volume ≥ 20 mL), MWA may be more efficacious. Verification with prospective trials that account for baseline nodule volumes is needed.
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.