ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Deconstructing mastery in colorectal fluorescence angiography interpretation.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quantification of indocyanine green fluorescence angiography in colorectal surgery: a systematic review of the literature.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Perioperative splanchnic perfusion variation around colorectal surgery using both indocyanine green spectrophotometry and fluorescence angiography.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Colorectal surgeons' perspectives on the efficacy of intraoperative bowel perfusion technology with a focus on indocyanine green fluorescence angiography.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Advancing indocyanine green fluorescence flap perfusion assessment via near infrared signal quantification.JPRAS open · 2024Article
- Clinical and computational development of a patient-calibrated ICGFA bowel transection recommender.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Impact of standardising indocyanine green fluorescence angiography technique for visual and quantitative interpretation on interuser variability in colorectal surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Evaluating clinical near-infrared surgical camera systems with a view to optimizing operator and computational signal analysis.Journal of biomedical optics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIndocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICGFA) is commonly used in colorectal anastomotic practice with limited pre-training. Recent work has shown that there is considerable inconsistency in signal interpretation between surgeons with minimal or no experience versus those consciously invested in mastery of the technique. Here, we deconstruct the fluorescence signal patterns of expert-annotated surgical ICGFA videos to understand better their correlation and combine this with structured interviews to ascertain whether such interpretative capability is conscious or unconscious.
methodsFor fluorescence signal analysis, expert-annotated ICGFA videos (n = 24) were quantitatively interrogated using a boutique intensity tracker (IBM Research) to generate signal time plots. Such fluorescence intensity data were examined for inter-observer correlation (Intraclass Correlation Coefficients, ICC) at specific curve milestones: the maximum fluorescence signal (F
resultsCorrelation by mathematical measures was excellent (ICC0.9-1.0) for F
conclusionExpert ICGFA users demonstrate high correlation in mathematical measures of their signal interpretation although do so tacitly. Computational quantification of expert behavior can help develop the necessary lexicon and training sets as well as computer vision methodology to better exploit ICGFA technology.
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.