ReviewOTO open
Intraoperative Ultrasound for the Management of Oral Tongue Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate for correlation between intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS)-measured tumor thickness (TT) (uTT) and histopathological TT (hTT), and to compare IOUS-assisted resection with conventional resection in patients with oral tongue cancers. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE (1946-2023), Embase.com (1947-2023), and Web of Science (All Databases 1900-2023). Review Methods: Inclusion criteria were the use of IOUS for the management of oral tongue cancer. Studies that did not report quantitative data were excluded. Additionally, studies that were not contributory to meta-analysis, or a narrative analysis of pooled results were excluded. Selection was carried out by 2 reviewers. A total of 2417 studies were initially identified, with 12 ultimately being included in this review, and 7 included in the meta-analysis. Data were extracted by 2 investigators and were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: Our meta-analysis reveals a pooled correlation coefficient of 0.92 (95% confidence interval: 0.80-0.96) for studies comparing uTT to hTT. Studies comparing IOUS-assisted resection to conventional resection found IOUS-assisted resection yielded wider nearest margins in all studies reporting this outcome. Conclusion: IOUS reliably measures TT, similarly to that of histopathology measurement. IOUS-assisted resection, which allows the surgeon to view the deep extent of tumor invasion, may increase closest radial margin distance compared to conventional resection. IOUS-assisted resection may represent a more reliable approach to achieving clear margins than conventional resection.
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.