ReviewEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2024
How to objectively evaluate the impact of image-guided surgery technologies.
Review in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for localized renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological, perioperative, and renal functional outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Advances in Minimally Invasive General Surgery: A Narrative Review of Techniques, Technologies, and Patient Outcomes.Cureus · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis manuscript aims to provide a better understanding of methods and techniques with which one can better quantify the impact of image-guided surgical technologies.
methodsA literature review was conducted with regard to economic and technical methods of medical device evaluation in various countries. Attention was focused on applications related to image-guided interventions that have enabled procedures to be performed in a minimally invasive manner, produced superior clinical outcomes, or have become standard of care.
resultsThe review provides examples of successful implementations and adoption of image-guided surgical techniques, mostly in the field of neurosurgery. Failures as well as newly developed technologies still undergoing cost-efficacy analysis are discussed.
conclusionThe field of image-guided surgery has evolved from solely using preoperative images to utilizing highly specific tools and software to provide more information to the interventionalist in real time. While deformations in soft tissue often preclude the use of such instruments outside of neurosurgery, recent developments in optical and radioactive guidance have enabled surgeons to better account for organ motion and provide feedback to the surgeon as tissue is cut. These technologies are currently undergoing value assessments in many countries and hold promise to improve outcomes for patients, surgeons, care teams, payors, and society in general.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37971499What 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.