ReviewCureus2026
Irreversible Electroporation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatic Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to systematically pool all direct comparative evidence from two-arm studies comparing irreversible electroporation (IRE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatic malignancies and evaluating local tumour recurrence/progression (LTRP), complication rates, and overall mortality. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to April 30, 2026. Only studies with a direct IRE versus RFA comparison arm were eligible. Six direct comparative studies were included (two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four retrospective cohorts; n=623: IRE=258, RFA=365). Pooled analysis showed no significant difference between IRE and RFA in LTRP (RR 0.68, 95%CI 0.32-1.44; I2=64%; four studies), complication rates (RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.69-1.40; I2=0%; four studies), or mortality (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.43-2.41; six studies). A consistent non-significant trend towards reduced LTRP with IRE was observed across studies. IRE demonstrates equivalent safety and a consistent, though statistically non-significant, trend towards superior local tumour control compared with RFA for hepatic malignancies. The high heterogeneity in LTRP and the limited number of studies preclude definitive conclusions. Larger, adequately powered RCTs with standardised endpoints are needed to definitively establish the comparative efficacy of IRE in this setting.
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.