Aikata 2006.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Randomised clinical trial | |
| Participants | Country: Japan Number randomised: 44 Postrandomisation dropouts: not stated Revised sample size: 44 Average age: not stated Females: not stated Cirrhosis: not stated Very early HCC: not stated Portal hypertension: not stated Viral aetiology: not stated Immunotherapy/antiviral adjuvant therapy: not stated Average follow‐up period in months (for all groups): not stated Criteria for early or very early HCC and other inclusion criteria:
|
|
| Interventions | Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups: Group 1: TACE plus radiofrequency ablation (n = 21). Further details: cisplatinum TACE, internally cooled electrode (brand not stated) for radiofrequency ablation. Group 2: Radiofrequency ablation (n = 23). Further details: internally cooled electrode (brand not stated). | |
| Outcomes | The outcomes reported were:
|
|
| Notes | Reasons for postrandomisation dropouts: not stated | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: this information was not available. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: this information was not available. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: this information was not available. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: this information was not available. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: this information was not available. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Comment: important clinical outcomes were reported. |
| For‐profit bias | Unclear risk | Comment: this information was not available. |
| Other bias | Low risk | Comment: no other bias noted. |