ReviewVisceral medicine2020
Towards an Optical Biopsy during Visceral Surgical Interventions.
Review in Visceral medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative differentiation of pancreatic neoplastic lesions using optical coherence tomography (OCT).Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Intraoperative characterization of cardiac tissue: the potential of light scattering spectroscopy.Journal of biomedical optics · 2024Article
- The Use of Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy in Diagnosing Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Confocal Laser Microscopy for in vivo Intraoperative Application: Diagnostic Accuracy of Investigator and Machine Learning Strategies.Visceral medicine · 2021Article
- Reduced motion artifacts and speed improvements in enhanced line-scanning fiber bundle endomicroscopy.Journal of biomedical optics · 2021Article
- Robotics in Surgery and Endoscopy.Visceral medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer will replace cardiovascular diseases as the most frequent cause of death. Therefore, the goals of cancer treatment are prevention strategies and early detection by cancer screening and ideal stage therapy. From an oncological point of view, complete tumor resection is a significant prognostic factor. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) and confocal laser microscopy (CLM) are two techniques that have the potential to complement intraoperative frozen section analysis as in vivo and real-time optical biopsies. SUMMARY: In this review we present both procedures and review the progress of evaluation for intraoperative application in visceral surgery. For visceral surgery, there are promising studies evaluating OCT and CLM; however, application during routine visceral surgical interventions is still lacking. KEY MESSAGE: OCT and CLM are not competing but complementary approaches of tissue analysis to intraoperative frozen section analysis. Although intraoperative application of OCT and CLM is at an early stage, they are two promising techniques of intraoperative in vivo and real-time tissue examination. Additionally, deep learning strategies provide a significant supplement for automated tissue detection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.