ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2026
Multibipolar radiofrequency
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Image-guided radiofrequency versus microwave ablation for small to medium hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData comparing the outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ablation by multibipolar radiofrequency ablation (mbp-RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are lacking. This study compares safety and efficacy of the two techniques in treatment-naive HCC.
aimTo compare the risk of local tumor progression (LTP) according to the technique; secondary endpoints included technique efficacy rate at one-month, overall survival and major complication rate.
methodsA bi-institutional retrospective analysis of patients undergoing treatment-naive HCC ablation by either technique was performed. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to compare the two groups. Mixed effects multivariate Cox regression was applied to identify risk factors for LTP.
resultsA total of 362 patients (mean age, 66.1 ± 6.2 years, 308 men) were included, of which 242 (323 tumors) treated by mbp-RFA and 120 (168 tumors) by MWA. After a median follow-up of 27 months, cumulative LTP was 11.4% after mbp-RFA and 25.2% after MWA. Independent risk factors for LTP at multivariate analysis were MWA (hazard ratio = 2.85,
conclusionMbp-RFA leads to better local tumor control of treatment-naïve HCC than MWA regardless of tumor size and has better primary efficacy, while maintaining a comparable safety profile.
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.