2‐year survival · 1088 patients with early HCC
1 finding from 1 review
Event‐free survival · 1088 patients with early HCC
1 finding from 1 review
All‐cause mortality · people with liver metastases
It is very uncertain whether microwave coagulation changes all‐cause mortality compared with radiofrequency ablation (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Time to mortality (overall survival) · people with liver metastases
It is very uncertain whether microwave coagulation changes time to mortality (overall survival) compared with radiofrequency ablation (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Health‐related quality of life · people with liver metastases
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Any adverse events or complications · people with liver metastases
It is very uncertain whether microwave coagulation changes any adverse events or complications compared with radiofrequency ablation (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Disease-free survival · people with liver metastases
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Failure to clear liver metastases · people with liver metastases
1 finding from 1 review
Recurrence of liver metastases local progression · people with liver metastases
It is very uncertain whether microwave coagulation changes recurrence of liver metastases local progression compared with radiofrequency ablation (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Recurrence of liver metastases distant recurrence · people with liver metastases
It is very uncertain whether microwave coagulation changes recurrence of liver metastases distant recurrence compared with radiofrequency ablation (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Technical success · people with GSV incompetence
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) showed no clear difference in technical success (< 5 years) compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (moderate certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
Recurrence · people with GSV incompetence
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) showed no clear difference in recurrence (< 5 years) compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Long‐term recurrence (> 5 years) · people with GSV incompetence
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) may leads to higher long‐term recurrence (> 5 years) compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Complications (up to 8 years) · people with GSV incompetence
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Very low
QoL · people with GSV incompetence
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Moderate
All‐cause mortality at maximal · people with early‐ or very early‐stage hepatocellular carcinoma eligible for surgery
It is very uncertain whether surgery changes all‐cause mortality at maximal compared with radiofrequency ablation (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Health‐related quality of life · people with early‐ or very early‐stage hepatocellular carcinoma ineligible for surgery
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Mortality at maximal · people with early‐ or very early‐stage hepatocellular carcinoma ineligible for surgery
It is very uncertain whether laser ablation changes mortality at maximal compared with radiofrequency ablation (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Cancer‐related mortality at maximal · people with early‐ or very early‐stage hepatocellular carcinoma ineligible for surgery
It is very uncertain whether laser ablation changes cancer‐related mortality at maximal compared with radiofrequency ablation (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Serious adverse events (number of participants) · people with early‐ or very early‐stage hepatocellular carcinoma ineligible for surgery
It is very uncertain whether laser ablation changes serious adverse events (number of participants) compared with radiofrequency ablation (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review