ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Histotripsy for liver tumours: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current clinical evidence.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Histotripsy is a novel, non-invasive, non-ionising, non-thermal method of mechanical tumour disruption that received US FDA approval in October 2023 for the treatment of liver tumours. This study aims to summarise and evaluate the safety and outcomes data following histotripsy of primary and secondary liver tumours. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. Records were identified through review of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus (database inception to December 2025) and manual review. Eligible studies were prospective or retrospective cohort studies and clinical trials published in English between Jan 1, 2015 and Dec 31, 2025 reporting clinical outcomes of histotripsy for liver tumours in three or more patients. Literature reviews, editorials, conference abstracts, animal studies, and case reports of two or fewer patients were excluded. Evaluated outcomes included post-procedural complications, local tumour control (LTC), overall survival, procedural technical success, tumour volume reduction, and off-target effects. Study quality was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I Findings: Ten studies (553 patients) met inclusion criteria. No studies exhibited a high risk of bias; seven demonstrated a moderate risk of bias in at least one domain. Using a random-effects model, the pooled technical success rate was 94.1% (95% CI: 90.4%-96.4%; I Interpretation: Although there is notable heterogeneity across studies, pooled results indicate that histotripsy has high rates of technical feasibility and local control with a favourable side effect profile. Interpretation of these findings is limited by the small number of available studies, variability in outcome definitions and imaging assessment methods, and short follow-up durations. These results underscore the need for larger, prospectively designed studies with standardised reporting frameworks and longer follow-up to more precisely characterise the clinical, radiologic, and quantitative imaging outcomes following histotripsy. Funding: None.
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.