Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27533438›Full record

ReviewJournal of biomedical optics2016

Review of fluorescence guided surgery systems: identification of key performance capabilities beyond indocyanine green imaging.

Alisha V DSouza, Huiyun Lin, Eric R Henderson, Kimberley S Samkoe, Brian W Pogue

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of biomedical optics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 229 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
229citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

229 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Visual extended reality tools in image-guided surgery in urology: a systematic review.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

169 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

5 authors.

Alisha V DSouzaDartmouth College, Thayer School of Engineering, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, United States.
Huiyun LinDartmouth College, Thayer School of Engineering, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, United StatesbFujian Normal University, MOE Key Laboratory of OptoElectronic Science and Technology for Medicine, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory for Photonics Technology, Fuj.
Eric R HendersonDartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedics, Lebanon, New Hampshire 03756, United States.
Kimberley S SamkoeDartmouth College, Thayer School of Engineering, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, United StatesdDartmouth College, Geisel School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, United States.
Brian W PogueDartmouth College, Thayer School of Engineering, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, United StatesdDartmouth College, Geisel School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, United States.

Funding

Fluorescence Imaging to Optimize Cancer TherapyR01CA109558 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI POGUE, BRIAN WILLIAM · 2005 to 2015
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA109558
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is growing interest in using fluorescence imaging instruments to guide surgery, and the leading options for open-field imaging are reviewed here. While the clinical fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) field has been focused predominantly on indocyanine green (ICG) imaging, there is accelerated development of more specific molecular tracers. These agents should help advance new indications for which FGS presents a paradigm shift in how molecular information is provided for resection decisions. There has been a steady growth in commercially marketed FGS systems, each with their own differentiated performance characteristics and specifications. A set of desirable criteria is presented to guide the evaluation of instruments, including: (i) real-time overlay of white-light and fluorescence images, (ii) operation within ambient room lighting, (iii) nanomolar-level sensitivity, (iv) quantitative capabilities, (v) simultaneous multiple fluorophore imaging, and (vi) ergonomic utility for open surgery. In this review, United States Food and Drug Administration 510(k) cleared commercial systems and some leading premarket FGS research systems were evaluated to illustrate the continual increase in this performance feature base. Generally, the systems designed for ICG-only imaging have sufficient sensitivity to ICG, but a fraction of the other desired features listed above, with both lower sensitivity and dynamic range. In comparison, the emerging research systems targeted for use with molecular agents have unique capabilities that will be essential for successful clinical imaging studies with low-concentration agents or where superior rejection of ambient light is needed. There is no perfect imaging system, but the feature differences among them are important differentiators in their utility, as outlined in the data and tables here.

Indexed as

Optical ImagingFluorescent DyesHumansIndocyanine GreenLightingSurgery, Computer-AssistedFluorescent DyesIndocyanine Green

Identifiers

PMID27533438
PMCPMC4985715

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.