SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systemic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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: Liver resection and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are two common treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, their efficacy and safety remain unclear. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of these two treatments. Methods: We searched multiple databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared liver resection with RFA for the treatment of HCC. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival rate. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of complications. We used RevMan 5.4 software to calculate the pooled effects and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Ten RCTs and 35 cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled OR for 5-year overall survival rate favored liver resection (OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.19-2.61, Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that liver resection is more effective than RFA in treating HCC with regard to higher 5-year overall survival rate, while the safety of liver resection was concerning. We recommend liver resection as a first-line treatment for HCC, but RFA may be a preferable choice for patients who are not suitable for surgical procedures. More high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm these findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42025458621.
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.