Figures & data
Table 1. The main characteristics of studies included for LSM.
Figure 1. Flow chart of literature search and study selection. A total of 791 articles were initially retrieved. After carefully reviewed eight studies reporting liver stiffness measurement (LSM) were included in the analysis.
![Figure 1. Flow chart of literature search and study selection. A total of 791 articles were initially retrieved. After carefully reviewed eight studies reporting liver stiffness measurement (LSM) were included in the analysis.](/cms/asset/45de21be-a3fe-4962-ae42-1d109a6bdca1/ihyt_a_1947529_f0001_c.jpg)
Figure 2. Forest plots of the relationship between LSM and survival outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with RFA in categorical group. A fixed-effect model was used to evaluate the impact of LSM on OS. The pooled result indicated that high LSM was associated with poor OS. LSM: liver stiffness measurement; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval.
![Figure 2. Forest plots of the relationship between LSM and survival outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with RFA in categorical group. A fixed-effect model was used to evaluate the impact of LSM on OS. The pooled result indicated that high LSM was associated with poor OS. LSM: liver stiffness measurement; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval.](/cms/asset/0c3a3d68-2a16-44ab-84c7-fd1f69c2e9bb/ihyt_a_1947529_f0002_c.jpg)
Figure 3. Forest plots of the relationship between LSM and survival outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with RFA in categorical group. A random-effect model was used to evaluate the impact of LSM on RFS. The pooled result indicated that high LSM was associated with poor RFS. LSM: liver stiffness measurement; RFS: recurrence-free survival; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio.
![Figure 3. Forest plots of the relationship between LSM and survival outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with RFA in categorical group. A random-effect model was used to evaluate the impact of LSM on RFS. The pooled result indicated that high LSM was associated with poor RFS. LSM: liver stiffness measurement; RFS: recurrence-free survival; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio.](/cms/asset/2c93f7af-a27f-4183-aedd-bb9035552f35/ihyt_a_1947529_f0003_c.jpg)
Table 2. Results of subgroup analysis.
Figure 4. Forest plots of the relationship between LSM and survival outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with RFA in continuous group. A random-effect model was used to evaluate the impact of LSM on RFS. The pooled result indicated that high LSM was associated with poor RFS. LSM: liver stiffness measurement; RFS: recurrence-free survival; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio.
![Figure 4. Forest plots of the relationship between LSM and survival outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with RFA in continuous group. A random-effect model was used to evaluate the impact of LSM on RFS. The pooled result indicated that high LSM was associated with poor RFS. LSM: liver stiffness measurement; RFS: recurrence-free survival; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio.](/cms/asset/eb64508f-16f3-4b0f-bbe7-a04f9a1c5d76/ihyt_a_1947529_f0004_c.jpg)
Figure 5. Funnel plots for assessing publication bias in survival outcomes. The funnel plots of the association between LSM and RFS were basically symmetrical. LSM: liver stiffness measurement; RFS: recurrence-free survival.
![Figure 5. Funnel plots for assessing publication bias in survival outcomes. The funnel plots of the association between LSM and RFS were basically symmetrical. LSM: liver stiffness measurement; RFS: recurrence-free survival.](/cms/asset/de5eeb77-c97a-44f1-abf4-a20c8258aa67/ihyt_a_1947529_f0005_c.jpg)