ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Radioactive Seed Localization for Nonpalpable Breast Lesions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global research trends and thematic evolution of imaging-guided localization in breast cancer surgery: a bibliometric analysis.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Radioguided Localisation Techniques for Non-Palpable Breast Lesions: An Umbrella Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- SCOUTCancers · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Hologic LOCalizer™ RFID Tags for Preoperative Localization of Breast Lesions: A Single-Center Experience.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Assessing the Efficacy of Radioactive Iodine Seed Localisation in Targeted Axillary Dissection for Node-Positive Early Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study is a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing radioactive seed localization (RSL) versus radio-guided occult lesion localization (ROLL) and wire-guided localization (WGL) for patients with impalpable breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery and evaluating efficacy, safety, and logistical outcomes. The protocol is registered in PROSPERO with the number CRD42022299726.
methodsA search was conducted in the Embase, Lilacs, Pubmed, Scielo, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov databases, in addition to a manual search in the reference list of relevant articles, for randomized clinical trials and cohort studies. Studies selected were submitted to their own data extraction forms and risk of bias analysis according to the ROB 2 and ROBINS 1 tools. A meta-analysis was performed, considering the random effect model, calculating the relative risk or the mean difference for dichotomous or continuous data, respectively. The quality of the evidence generated was analyzed by outcome according to the GRADE tool. Overall, 46 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review; of these, 4 studies compared RSL and ROLL with a population of 1550 women, and 43 compared RSL and WGL with a population of 19,820 women.
resultsThe results showed that RSL is a superior method to WGL in terms of surgical efficiency in the impalpable breast lesions' intraoperative localization, and it is at least equivalent to ROLL. Regarding security, RSL obtained results equivalent to the already established technique, the WGL. In addition to presenting promising results, RSL has been proven to be superior to WGL and ROLL technologies.
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.