ReviewSurgery journal (New York, N.Y.)2020
Current State of Surgical Lighting.
Review in Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating safety culture, environment, and sensory perceptions in the operating room: a narrative review.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Review
- Using Gesture and Speech to Control Surgical Lighting Systems: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Evaluating the efficiency and ergonomics of a novel smart surgical lighting system: a passive oddball experiment with EEG measurements to assess workplace strain in clinical settings.Frontiers in medical technology · 2025Article
- Visualisation ergonomics and robotic surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Review
- A virtual reality simulation of a novel way to illuminate the surgical field - A feasibility study on the use of automated lighting systems in the operating theatre.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Self-Retaining Photography Cheek Retractor as an Excellent Aid for Upper Jaw Surgeries: A Technical Note.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2022Article
- Reducing fire and burn risk in the operating room-testing of a novel device.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical performance in the operating room (OR) is supported by effective illumination, which mitigates the inherent environmental, operational, and visual challenges associated with surgery. Three critical components are essential to optimize operating light as illumination: (1) centering on the surgeon's immediate field, (2) illuminating a wide or narrow field with high-intensity light, and (3) penetrating into a cavity or under a flap. Furthermore, optimal surgical illumination reduces shadow, glare, and artifact in visualization of the surgical site. However, achieving these principles is more complex than at first glance, requiring a detailed examination of the variables that comprise surgical illumination. In brief, efficacious surgical illumination combines sufficient ambient light with the ability to apply focused light at specific operative stages and angles. But, brighter is not always merely better; rather, a nuanced approach, cognizant of the challenges inherent in the OR theater, can provide for a thoughtful exploration of how surgical illumination can be utilized to the best of its ability, ensuring a safe and smooth surgery for all.
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.