ArticleHeliyon2024
Smartphone-based thermography in flap surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of perforator identification.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Preoperative detection of perforating vessels in autologous abdominal flap-based breast reconstruction using a smartphone-based thermography device.JPRAS open · 2025Article
- Clinical Applications, Legal Considerations and Implementation Challenges of Smartphone-Based Thermography: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Thermography can be used in pre-operative planning of free perforator flap surgeries. Thermography assesses skin temperature by measuring the quantity of infrared radiation observed. In this meta-analysis, authors assess the sensitivity of smartphone-based thermal imaging (SBTI) in the detection of perforators and analyze the difference between static and dynamic imaging. Materials and methods: Authors followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The meta package in R was used to conduct the meta-analysis. The "metaprop" function was used to calculate the overall sensitivity estimate and 95% confidence interval. The "metaprop.one" function was used to calculate subgroup estimates for static and dynamic study types. The "metareg" function was used to conduct meta-regression analyses to explore sources of heterogeneity. Results: This study includes seven articles with 1429 perforators being evaluated. The overall proportion of the sensitivities was estimated to be 0.8754 (95% CI: 0.7542; 0.9414) using a random effects model. The heterogeneity of the studies was high, as indicated by the tau^2 value of 1.2500 (95% CI: 0.4497; 8.4060) and the I^2 value of 92.6% (95% CI: 88.1%; 95.4%). The pooled sensitivity for static imaging was 0.8636 (95%CI: 0.6238-0.9603) with a tau^2 of 2.0661 and a tau of 1.4374, while the pooled sensitivity for dynamic imaging was slightly higher (p = 0.7016) at 0.8993 (95%CI: 0.7412-0.9653) with a smaller tau^2 of 0.8403 and a tau of 0.9167. Conclusion: Further studies need to confirm that SBTI is a reliable and convenient technique for detecting perforators for the pre-operative planning of free perforator flap surgeries.
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.