ReviewCancers2024
Efficacy and Safety of Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Compared to Conventional Surgery in the Management of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Listening to Immunotherapy - Ultrasound and Photoacoustic Imaging Strategies to Guide and Enhance Cancer Treatments.Molecular imaging and biology · 2026Review
- Deep impact analysis of surgical strategy changes guided by indocyanine green fluorescence angiography in laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Observational
- Photoacoustic-Integrated Multimodal Approach for Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025Review
- Indocyanine Blue (ICB) as a Functional Alternative to Indocyanine Green (ICG) for Enhanced 700 nm NIR Imaging.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of fluorescence agents and imaging systems is a promising adjunct in the surgical management of colorectal cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of fluorescence-guided surgery in the management of colorectal cancer, with a comparison to conventional (non-fluorescence-guided) surgery.
methodsA literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and CINAHL databases was performed for studies that reported data on the outcomes of fluorescence-guided surgery, with or without a comparison group undergoing conventional surgery, for colorectal cancer between January 2000 and January 2024. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effect models, and between-study heterogeneity was assessed.
results35 studies of 3217 patients with colorectal cancer were included: 26 studies (964 patients) reported on fluorescence-guided surgery and 9 studies (2253 patients) reported on fluorescence versus conventional surgery. The weighted mean of the cancer detection rate of fluorescence-guided surgery was 71% (95% CI 0.55-0.85), with no significant difference in lymph node yield ratio (WMD -0.04; 95% CI -0.10-0.02;
conclusionsFluorescence-guided surgery is a safe and effective approach in the management of colorectal cancer, potentially reducing blood loss and complications. Further randomised controlled trials are required comparing fluorescence-guided surgery with conventional surgery to determine its prognostic benefit and where it should precisely fit within the management pathway of colorectal cancer.
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.