ArticleJournal of imaging2023
Path Tracing vs. Volume Rendering Technique in Post-Surgical Assessment of Bone Flap in Oncologic Head and Neck Reconstructive Surgery: A Preliminary Study.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Turning Immersive Viewers into Analytical Workspaces: ASCRIBE-XR and Agent-Driven Scientific Visualization.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to compare a relatively novel three-dimensional rendering called Path Tracing (PT) to the Volume Rendering technique (VR) in the post-surgical assessment of head and neck oncologic surgery followed by bone flap reconstruction. This retrospective study included 39 oncologic patients who underwent head and neck surgery with free bone flap reconstructions. All exams were acquired using a 64 Multi-Detector CT (MDCT). PT and VR images were created on a dedicated workstation. Five readers, with different expertise in bone flap reconstructive surgery, independently reviewed the images (two radiologists, one head and neck surgeon and two otorhinolaryngologists, respectively). Every observer evaluated the images according to a 5-point Likert scale. The parameters assessed were image quality, anatomical accuracy, bone flap evaluation, and metal artefact. Mean and median values for all the parameters across the observer were calculated. The scores of both reconstruction methods were compared using a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test. Inter-reader agreement was calculated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. PT was considered significantly superior to VR 3D reconstructions by all readers (
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.