ReviewMedical physics2022
Nuclear-medicine probes: Where we are and where we are going.
Review in Medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Flexible intraoperative detectors for robotic and laparoscopic image-guided surgery: a systematic review.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Pooled it
- Design and Evaluation of a Portable Pinhole SPECT System forDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Analyzing Radiation Protection Risks in Nuclear Medicine: Cause Investigation and WSR-Based Countermeasure Evaluation.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Development and performance evaluation of a novel scintillation-based active shielding gamma probe.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
- Nuclear-medicine probes: Where we are and where we are going.Medical physics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nuclear medicine probes turned into the key for the identification and precise location of sentinel lymph nodes and other occult lesions (i.e., tumors) by using the systemic administration of radiotracers. Intraoperative nuclear probes are key in the surgical management of some malignancies as well as in the determination of positive surgical margins, thus reducing the extent and potential surgery morbidity. Depending on their application, nuclear probes are classified into two main categories, namely, counting and imaging. Although counting probes present a simple design, are handheld (to be moved rapidly), and provide only acoustic signals when detecting radiation, imaging probes, also known as cameras, are more hardware-complex and also able to provide images but at the cost of an increased intervention time as displacing the camera has to be done slowly. This review article begins with an introductory section to highlight the relevance of nuclear-based probes and their components as well as the main differences between ionization- (semiconductor) and scintillation-based probes. Then, the most significant performance parameters of the probe are reviewed (i.e., sensitivity, contrast, count rate capabilities, shielding, energy, and spatial resolution), as well as the different types of probes based on the target radiation nature, namely: gamma (γ), beta (β) (positron and electron), and Cherenkov. Various available intraoperative nuclear probes are finally compared in terms of performance to discuss the state-of-the-art of nuclear medicine probes. The manuscript concludes by discussing the ideal probe design and the aspects to be considered when selecting nuclear-medicine probes.
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.