↓ Skip to main content

Radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for the treatment of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma meeting Milan criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for the treatment of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma meeting Milan criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/1477-7819-11-190
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chenyang Duan, Mengying Liu, Zhuohang Zhang, Kuansheng Ma, Ping Bie

Abstract

Current options for the treatment of the early-stage HCC conforming to the Milan criteria consist of liver transplantation, hepatic resection (HR), transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) .Whether HR or RFA is the better treatment for early HCC has long been debated. The aim of our paper is to compare the therapeutic effects of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and hepatic resection (HR) in the treatment of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Controlled trials evaluating the efficacy between RFA and HR for the treatment of early-stage HCC published before June 2013 were searched electronically using MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases. Using inclusion and exclusion criteria, two randomized controlled trials and 10 nonrandomized controlled trials were included in the meta- analysis. The results showed that the 3,5-year overall survival rates and 1,3,5 disease-free survival rates were significantly lower after RFA than after HR. However, complications after treatment were less common and the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter after RFA. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the 1-year overall survival rate between RFA and HR. The conclusions of the results show that the difference in the short-term effectiveness of RFA and HR in the treatment of small HCC is not notable, but the long-term efficacy of HR is better than that of RFA. However, HR is associated with more complications and a longer hospital stay.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 13 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2015.
All research outputs
#6,766,085
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#187
of 2,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,027
of 197,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,040 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 197,045 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.