Table 3. Subgroup analysis according to ablative technique and imaging modality.

Subgroup	Symptom relief rate				Major complication rate				NPVR				Local control rate
	Pool proportion [95% CI] (%)	I2 (%)	P		Pool proportion [95% CI] (%)	I2 (%)	P		Pool proportion [95% CI] (%)	I2 (%)	P		Pool proportion [95% CI] (%)	I2 (%)	P
Ablative technique			0.32				0.61				0.40				0.01
HIFU	100 [85–100]	0			2 [0–6]	35			77 [71–85]	94			99 [99–100]	19
Cryo	87 [74–97]	60			4 [1–8]	51			74 [69–79]	0			80 [68–90]	68
MWA	89 [52–100]	NA			11 [0–48]	NA			NA	NA			78 [40–97]	NA
Imaging modality			0.62				0.77				0.84				0.01
US	76 [60–100]	88			6 [1–13]	53			75 [67–83]	95			98 [95–100]	51
CT	91 [78–99]	33			2 [0–7]	0			76 [67–87]	53			87 [79–93]	12
MRI	100 [54–100]	NA			3 [ 0–14]	0			78 [70–87]	0			93 [68–100]	12

CI, confidence interval; NPVR, non-perfused volume rate; HIFU, high-intensity focused ultrasound; Cryo, cryoablation; MWA, microwave ablation; NA, not available; US, ultrasound; CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.