SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Image-guided radiofrequency versus microwave ablation for small to medium hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of image-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus microwave ablation (MWA) for the treatment of small to medium-sized hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: A systematic search of four English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE) was performed up to January 8, 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing RFA and MWA for HCC were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used for quality assessment of RCTs and cohort studies, respectively. Evidence certainty was evaluated via the GRADE system. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 18, with results expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (ID: CRD420261297809). Results: Nineteen studies (6 RCTs, 13 cohort studies) were included. No statistically significant differences were observed between RFA and MWA in the complete ablation rate (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.01, P = 0.84), 5-year overall survival (RR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.93-1.05, P = 0.67), 1-year disease-free survival (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.04, P = 0.45), or incidence of major adverse events (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.66). An initial analysis suggested a superior 1-year overall survival for MWA (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99, P = 0.008), but this difference was not sustained after excluding studies with a high risk of bias (P = 0.05). Substantial heterogeneity was present for 5-year disease-free survival (I²=81%). The overall certainty of evidence was rated low per GRADE. Conclusion: For small to medium-sized HCC, image-guided RFA and MWA exhibit comparable core efficacy and safety. Treatment selection should be individualized based on tumor characteristics, institutional resources, and operator expertise. The findings concerning 5-year disease-free survival require cautious interpretation. Future large-scale, multicenter RCTs with standardized protocols are needed for definitive validation. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261297809, identifier CRD420261297809.
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.