SynthesisSystematic reviews2026
Comparison of surgical resection and radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma (≤ 3 cm): an updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis meta-analysis aims to compare the safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and surgical resection (SR) in patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted across four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase) for studies published between January 2020 and June 2024. The included studies reported comparative outcomes of SR and RFA in patients with small HCC (≤ 3 cm), including survival, oncological, and perioperative endpoints.
resultsA total of 25 studies involving 10,322 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with RFA, SR was associated with superior survival outcomes, including three-year overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.66-0.80), five-year OS (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.62-0.79), one-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.47-0.65), three-year RFS (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.59-0.73), and five-year RFS (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.68-0.85). Although SR was linked to longer operative times, prolonged hospitalization, and higher complication rates, it provided significantly better local tumor control, as reflected by a markedly reduced local recurrence rate. In patients with multiple tumors or those measuring ≤ 2 cm, the three- and five-year RFS rates were comparable between the SR and RFA groups. The three-year OS was also similar between the two treatments for tumors ≤ 2 cm.
conclusionThese findings indicate that, compared with RFA, SR offers improved survival and lower recurrence rates in patients with small HCC. However, for individuals with tumors ≤ 2 cm or multiple HCC lesions, long-term survival outcomes are comparable between the two modalities, suggesting that treatment decisions should be individualized on the basis of tumor characteristics and patient risk-benefit profiles.
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.