ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Artifact Management for Cerebral Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Signals: A Systematic Scoping Review.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Cerebral hemodynamics, autoregulation, and neurocognitive outcomes during Trendelenburg positioning in robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery: a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Practicalities of noninvasive neuromonitoring in intensive care.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Resting-state cortical activity, biomarkers and functional performance identify distinct biopsychosocial phenotypes in young adults with chronic postsurgical pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artifacts induced during patient monitoring are a main limitation for near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) as a non-invasive method of cerebral hemodynamic monitoring. There currently does not exist a robust "gold-standard" method for artifact management for these signals. The objective of this review is to comprehensively examine the literature on existing artifact management methods for cerebral NIRS signals recorded in animals and humans. A search of five databases was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The search yielded 806 unique results. There were 19 articles from these results that were included in this review based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. There were an additional 36 articles identified in the references of select articles that were also included. The methods outlined in these articles were grouped under two major categories: (1) motion and other disconnection artifact removal methods; (2) data quality improvement and physiological/other noise artifact filtering methods. These were sub-categorized by method type. It proved difficult to quantitatively compare the methods due to the heterogeneity of the effectiveness metrics and definitions of artifacts. The limitations evident in the existing literature justify the need for more comprehensive comparisons of artifact management. This review provides insights into the available methods for artifact management in cerebral NIRS and justification for a homogenous method to quantify the effectiveness of artifact management methods. This builds upon the work of two existing reviews that have been conducted on this topic; however, the scope is extended to all artifact types and all NIRS recording types. Future work by our lab in cerebral NIRS artifact management will lie in a layered artifact management method that will employ different techniques covered in this review (including dynamic thresholding, autoregressive-based methods, and wavelet-based methods) amongst others to remove varying artifact types.
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.