ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Image-Guided Intraoperative Assessment of Surgical Margins in Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Cancer: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Review.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- [Current evidence on intraoperative ultrasound : A position paper of the German Society for Ultrasound in Medicine (DEGUM)].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Surgical Outcomes and Margin Assessment by Resection Tool in Tongue Cancer: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- National trends and disparities in non-cancer mortality among older adults with oral cancer in the United States, 1999-2020.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Theranostic Approaches for Gastric Cancer: An Overview of In Vitro and In Vivo Investigations.Cancers · 2024Review
- Intraoperative Techniques That Define the Mucosal Margins of Oral Cancer In-Vivo: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: The assessment of resection margins during surgery of oral cavity squamous cell cancer (OCSCC) dramatically impacts the prognosis of the patient as well as the need for adjuvant treatment in the future. Currently there is an unmet need to improve OCSCC surgical margins which appear to be involved in around 45% cases. Intraoperative imaging techniques, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intraoral ultrasound (ioUS), have emerged as promising tools in guiding surgical resection, although the number of studies available on this subject is still low. The aim of this diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) review is to investigate the accuracy of intraoperative imaging in the assessment of OCSCC margins. (2) Methods: By using the Cochrane-supported platform Review Manager version 5.4, a systematic search was performed on the online databases MEDLINE-EMBASE-CENTRAL using the keywords "oral cavity cancer, squamous cell carcinoma, tongue cancer, surgical margins, magnetic resonance imaging, intraoperative, intra-oral ultrasound". (3) Results: Ten papers were identified for full-text analysis. The negative predictive value (cutoff < 5 mm) for ioUS ranged from 0.55 to 0.91, that of MRI ranged from 0.5 to 0.91; accuracy analysis performed on four selected studies showed a sensitivity ranging from 0.07 to 0.75 and specificity ranging from 0.81 to 1. Image guidance allowed for a mean improvement in free margin resection of 35%. (4) Conclusions: IoUS shows comparable accuracy to that of ex vivo MRI for the assessment of close and involved surgical margins, and should be preferred as the more affordable and reproducible technique. Both techniques showed higher diagnostic yield if applied to early OCSCC (T1-T2 stages), and when histology is favorable.
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.