Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40384694›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025

Comparison of different new ultrasonic technologies in resection assessment of neurosurgery.

Lu Wang, Jinsong Liu, Yong Jiang, Ying Liang, Mengru Fang, Weichao Ma, Jiami Li, Xiangyu Li, Tianjian Ren, Man Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Lu WangUltrasound Medical Center, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Jinsong LiuDepartment of Cerebral Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Yong JiangDepartment of Cerebral Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Ying LiangUltrasound Medical Center, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Mengru FangThe School of Medical and Life Sciences, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Weichao MaDepartment of Cerebral Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Jiami LiUltrasound Medical Center, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Xiangyu LiUltrasound Medical Center, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Tianjian RenDepartment of Cerebral Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Man LuUltrasound Medical Center, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: New ultrasound (US) techniques, such as contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and shear wave elastography (SWE), are being used to identify artifacts, guide the interventions and evaluate the extent of resection, as it is difficult for gray-scale ultrasound to distinguish the artifacts in intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS). However, to date, no comparative study has been conducted on the role of several new US technologies in guiding brain tumor resection. Thus, this study sought to compare the roles of various new US technologies in guiding brain tumor resection to find a convenient and useful guiding technology for brain tumor resection. Methods: From July 2022 to July 2023, 64 brain tumor patients (33 men and 31 women), with ages ranging from 26 to 78 years (53.2±11.6 years), were included in the study. Before surgery, a planned resection (pRS) was determined for all of the included patients by a multidisciplinary neuro-oncology team. All patients underwent microsurgical resection of the lesion. After the craniotomy and before the dural opening, ultrasonic techniques, including B-mode, micro-flow imaging (MFI), CEUS, and SWE, were used to evaluate the features of the brain tumor and its surrounding structure. Then, those ultrasonic techniques were applied to each patient to confirm the microsurgical margin achieving the pRS at the end of the resection. Next, 3 days after surgery, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan was performed on each patient as the reference standard. The agreement between B-mode, color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI), MFI, CEUS, SWE, and MRI was measured by Fleiss' kappa agreement. Results: In the evaluation of the surgical resection edges, all the included US technologies showed substantial agreement compared to the MRI results. The Kappa values were 0.717, 0.751, 0.714, and 0.892 for B-mode, MFI, SWE, and CEUS, respectively. CEUS and MRI showed the best diagnostic consistency. CEUS had the highest sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis (77.78%, 100%, 100%, and 86.05%, respectively), followed by MFI. B-mode and SWE showed similar accuracy in detecting tumor residue. Conclusions: US is a convenient and cost-effective method for guiding the procedure and evaluating the extent of resection in neurosurgery. CEUS has the highest diagnostic accuracy for residual lesions among the new US technologies. Thus, MFI can be recommended as a technique for guiding and evaluating residues in neurosurgery in addition to CEUS.

Indexed as

Comparisondifferent new ultrasound technologies (different new US technologies)neurosurgeryresection assessment

Identifiers

PMID40384694
PMCPMC12084732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.