ReviewCureus2026
Microwave Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are established curative-intent treatments for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but their relative benefits remain uncertain. We systematically synthesized comparative evidence on the effectiveness and safety of MWA versus RFA in adults with HCC. PubMed/Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Scopus, SciELO, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) were searched through March 2026. Study eligibility, extraction of treatment-specific data, and methodological quality assessment were independently evaluated by two reviewers. Quantitative synthesis used random-effects models, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous endpoints and hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event endpoints. Confidence in the evidence for each outcome was judged according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Thirty-eight studies, including seven randomized controlled trials, contributed 8,347 participants. Initial complete ablation was similar with MWA and RFA (28 studies; 6,036 participants; RR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.02; I²=0%). MWA was associated with less local tumor progression (27 studies; 5,166 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54-0.83; I²=54%), with a consistent association in randomized trials (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40-0.76; I²=0%). No conclusive between-technique differences were found for intrahepatic distant recurrence, overall survival, recurrence-free survival, major or minor complications, or periprocedural mortality. No statistically conclusive difference in initial complete ablation was demonstrated between MWA and RFA. MWA may provide better local control, although current evidence does not show a corresponding survival benefit. Treatment choice should incorporate tumor location, the expected ablation margin, procedural safety, operator experience, technology availability, and cost.
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.