Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25410320›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2015

A review of performance of near-infrared fluorescence imaging devices used in clinical studies.

B Zhu, E M Sevick-Muraca

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

84 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 175 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

B ZhuCenter for Molecular Imaging, The Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA.
E M Sevick-Muraca
Brown Foundation · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

Task Specific Project 4U54CA136404 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI SEVICK, EVA M. · 2008 to 2012
$5.1M
NCI NIH HHS U54 CA136404NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL09232
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) molecular imaging holds great promise as a new "point-of-care" medical imaging modality that can potentially provide the sensitivity of nuclear medicine techniques, but without the radioactivity that can otherwise place limitations of usage. Recently, NIRF imaging devices of a variety of designs have emerged in the market and in investigational clinical studies using indocyanine green (ICG) as a non-targeting NIRF contrast agent to demark the blood and lymphatic vasculatures both non-invasively and intraoperatively. Approved in the USA since 1956 for intravenous administration, ICG has been more recently used off label in intradermal or subcutaneous administrations for fluorescence imaging of the lymphatic vasculature and lymph nodes. Herein, we summarize the devices of a variety of designs, summarize their performance in lymphatic imaging in a tabular format and comment on necessary efforts to develop standards for device performance to compare and use these emerging devices in future, NIRF molecular imaging studies.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingEquipment DesignHumansReproducibility of ResultsSpectroscopy, Near-Infrared

Identifiers

PMID25410320
PMCPMC4277384
OpenAlexW2157132786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.