ArticleSurgical innovation2023
Interobserver Variability in the Assessment of Fluorescence Angiography in the Colon.
Article in Surgical innovation, 2023. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indocyanine green and height of anastomosis in colorectal surgery- a network meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Improved Quantification of ICG Perfusion Through Motion Compensation in Fluorescence-Guided Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- AUGUR-AIM: Clinical validation of an artificial intelligence indocyanine green fluorescence angiography expert representer.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Observational
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFluorescence angiography in colorectal surgery is a technique that may lead to lower anastomotic leak rates. However, the interpretation of the fluorescent signal is not standardised and there is a paucity of data regarding interobserver agreement. The aim of this study is to assess interobserver variability in selection of the transection point during fluorescence angiography before anastomosis.
methodsAn online survey with still images of fluorescence angiography was distributed through colorectal surgery channels containing images from 13 patients where several areas for transection were displayed to be chosen by raters. Agreement was assessed overall and between pre-planned rater cohorts (experts vs non-experts; trainees vs consultants; colorectal specialists vs non colorectal specialists), using Fleiss' kappa statistic.
results101 raters had complete image ratings. No significant difference was found between raters when choosing a point of optimal bowel transection based on fluorescence angiography still images. There was no difference between pre-planned cohorts analysed (experts vs non-experts; trainees vs consultants; colorectal specialists vs non colorectal specialists). Agreement between these cohorts was poor (<.26).
conclusionWhilst there is no learning curve for the technical adoption of FA, understanding the fluorescent signal characteristics is key to successful use. We found significant variation exists in interpretation of static fluorescence angiography data. Further efforts should be employed to standardise fluorescence angiography assessment.
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.