↓ Skip to main content

Radiofrequency ablation versus percutaneous ethanol injection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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 percutaneous ethanol injection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12957-015-0516-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Biao Yang, Rui-yu Zan, Shi-yu Wang, Xiang-lian Li, Mao-ling Wei, Wen-hao Guo, Xin You, Jing Li, Zheng-yin Liao

Abstract

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI) are treatment methods for patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are not suitable for surgery. Although some reports indicate that RFA is better than PEI, results from previous reviews and analyses are inconsistent. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to more thoroughly evaluate the effects of these treatments in patients with HCC. A literature search was conducted using the Excerpta Medica dataBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the American Society of Clinical Oncology database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, the Wanfang database, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and the Chongqing VIP database without language limitations. The primary outcome evaluated was overall survival, and secondary outcomes included complete response and local recurrence. Comparisons were made between Asian and European studies. Total pooled and subgroup analyses of Asian studies that included selection biases revealed that RFA is superior to PEI with respect to overall survival (hazard ratio (HR), 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.37 to 0.80; P < 0.01) and complete response (relative risk (RR), 1.10; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.18; P < 0.01). However, no significant difference was observed between RFA and PEI in the European studies. In Asian studies, RFA was associated with a lower local recurrence rate than PEI at 1 year (RR, 0.44; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.95; P < 0.05) and 3 years (RR, 0.35; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55; P < 0.01). However, local recurrence was significantly lower after only 3 years in European studies (RR, 0.50; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.78; P < 0.05). RFA was only superior to PEI in Asian studies that included selection bias. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support the idea that RFA is superior to PEI for patients with cirrhotic HCC. Additional large-scale, multicenter, randomized controlled trials that control for selection bias are needed to fully elucidate the optimal treatment method for HCC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 51%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 6%
Linguistics 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 14 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,326,126
of 22,794,367 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#610
of 2,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,671
of 258,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#19
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,794,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,042 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 258,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.