ArticleJournal of endocrinological investigation2026
Comparing the therapeutic efficacy of radiofrequency vs. Microwave ablation for non-functioning benign thyroid nodules.
Article in Journal of endocrinological investigation, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to compare the efficacy, procedural features, and safety profile of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus microwave ablation (MWA) for the treatment of non-functioning benign thyroid nodules (BTNs).
methodsThis retrospective, single-centre, cohort study included 203 nodules treated with RFA and 71 with MWA by a single experienced operator. Multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of treatment response, defined as 12-month volume reduction rate (VRR). Complication rates were also compared between RFA and MWA. A 1:1 case-control matching was performed based on baseline nodule volume and composition, yielding two matched cohorts of 66 patients each. VRRs after 6 and 12 months were compared between two groups.
resultsIn the overall population, similar VRRs were observed after 6 and 12 months. Significant differences in baseline nodule volume (24.35 ± 17.15 ml vs. 17.25 ± 15.22ml; p = 0.001) and in procedure times (519.96 ± 289.45s vs. 649.61 ± 321.05s; p = 0.003) were found for MWA and RFA, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified baseline volume (p < 0.001) and composition (p < 0.033) as significant and independent predictors of VRR. Both techniques showed comparable safety. In the matched cohorts, VRRs after 6-months were similar, while a higher VRR after 12-months was observed for MWA compared to RFA (64.70 ± 13.89% vs. 58.71 ± 16.81%; p = 0.028).
conclusionRFA and MWA are both safe and effective for treating BTNs. In the overall population, VRRs were similar between RFA and MWA, with MWA requiring shorter procedure times. After matching for key predictors of therapeutic response, MWA demonstrated superior efficacy at 12-months.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.