ReviewCancers2021
The Evolving Role of Radiofrequency Guided Localisation in Breast Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Radiofrequency identification tag localization of nonpalpable breast lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology experimental · 2025Pooled it
- Physics-Informed Design and Bench/Phantom Validation of a Shaft-Compatible 13.56 MHz NFC System for Laparoscopic Colorectal Tumour Localisation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- RFID Technology for Intraoperative Localisation of Small Colorectal Tumours: Electromagnetic Analysis and Experimental Validation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Radioguided Localisation Techniques for Non-Palpable Breast Lesions: An Umbrella Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Hologic LOCalizer™ RFID Tags for Preoperative Localization of Breast Lesions: A Single-Center Experience.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Observational
- The Era "or Error" of Second Localization Procedures.The breast journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Radioguided Surgery for the Localisation of Specific Adenopathies in the Head and Neck Area.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2024Article
- Navigating axillary staging post-neoadjuvant systemic therapy: innovations, efficacy, and oncologic safety.Gland surgery · 2024Article
- Resection Ratios and Tumor Eccentricity in Breast-Conserving Surgery Specimens for Surgical Accuracy Assessment.Cancers · 2024Article
- Review
- Evolution of localization methods for non-palpable breast lesions: a literature review from a translational medicine perspective.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2024Review
- The Impact of an Electromagnetic Seed Localization Device Versus Wire Localization on Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Matched-Pair Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Impact of Electromagnetic Seed Localization on Breast-Conserving Surgery.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wire-guided localisation (WGL) has been the gold-standard for localising non-palpable breast lesions before excision. Due to its drawbacks, various wireless alternatives have been developed, including LOCalizer™, which is based on radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology. In this systematic review, we consulted EMBASE, Medline and PubMed databases using appropriate search terms regarding the use of RFID technology in the localisation of occult breast lesions. Retrospective and prospective studies were included if they quoted the number of patients, rate of successful placement, retrieval rate, margin positivity rate and the re-excision rate. In addition, studies comparing RFID to WGL were also included and analysed separately. Seven studies were included in this systematic review spanning 1151 patients and 1344 tags. The pooled deployment rate was 99.1% and retrieval rate was 100%. Re-excision rate was 13.9%. One complication was identified. Two studies compared RFID with WGL (128 vs. 282 patients respectively). For both techniques the re-excision rate was 15.6% (20/128 vs. 44/282 respectively,
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.