Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34750537›Full record

ReviewNature biomedical engineering2022

Intraoperative imaging in pathology-assisted surgery.

Floris J Voskuil, Jasper Vonk, Bert van der Vegt, Schelto Kruijff, Vasilis Ntziachristos, Pieter J van der Zaag, Max J H Witjes, Gooitzen M van Dam

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature biomedical engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Floris J Voskuil *Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3740-4554
Jasper Vonk *Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Bert van der VegtDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2613-1506
Schelto KruijffDepartment of Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Vasilis NtziachristosChair for Biological Imaging, Center for Translational Cancer Research, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9988-0233
Pieter J van der ZaagPhillips Research Laboratories, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9080-4907
Max J H WitjesDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Gooitzen M van DamDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. g.m.van.dam@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7248-8696
University Medical Center Groningen · NLTUM Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pathological assessment of surgical specimens during surgery can reduce the incidence of positive resection margins, which otherwise can result in additional surgeries or aggressive therapeutic regimens. To improve patient outcomes, intraoperative spectroscopic, fluorescence-based, structural, optoacoustic and radiological imaging techniques are being tested on freshly excised tissue. The specific clinical setting and tumour type largely determine whether endogenous or exogenous contrast is to be detected and whether the tumour specificity of the detected biomarker, image resolution, image-acquisition times or penetration depth are to be prioritized. In this Perspective, we describe current clinical standards for intraoperative tissue analysis and discuss how intraoperative imaging is being implemented. We also discuss potential implementations of intraoperative pathology-assisted surgery for clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsSurgery, Computer-AssistedFluorescenceHumansMargins of Excision

Identifiers

PMID34750537
OpenAlexW3212971776

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.