Comparison of the safety and efficacy of hepatic resection and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of single small hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The present study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive hepatic resection (HR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of single small hepatocellular carcinoma via systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: We conducted electronic literature searches of PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library databases, A case-controlled trial comparing HR and RFA in the treatment of single small hepatocellular carcinoma published between 2010 and January 15, 2022 was searched and reported outcomes were overall survival, postoperative complications, intraoperative blood loss, duration of surgery, and recurrence. Literature met inclusion criteria were screened out, and the quality of the methodology used in the included literature was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. Results: Eleven articles were included, including 2,001 patients, including 1,071 in the RFA group and 930 in the HR group. Offset risk assessment results are published offset. Meta-analysis showed that the overall survival rate at 1, 3, and 5 years in RFA group was higher than that in HR group, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant at 1 year [odds ratio (OR) =1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14, 2.17, P=0.006], 3 years (OR =1.81, 95% CI: 1.42, 2.30, P<0.00001], and 5 years (OR =1.87, 95% CI: 1.47, 2.37, P<0.00001). The incidence of postoperative complications was significantly lower in the RFA group than in the human resources group [risk ratio (RR) =1.75, 95% CI: 1.02, 3.00, P=0.04], and length of hospital stay [standard mean difference (SMD) =2.92, 95% CI: 0.54, 5.30, P=0.02], operation time (SMD =2.87, 95% CI: 2.57, 3.16, P<0.00001) were shorter than those in HR group. However, the recurrence rate of RFA group was higher than that of HR group (OR =0.49, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.66, P<0.00001). Conclusions: RFA has the advantage of having more advantages and fewer complications in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma. Minimal complications can occur for patients when achieving satisfactory treatment results. A new treatment option is available for clinicians in the treatment of small liver cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".