ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
A single-institution experience with intraoperative
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraoperative technological advances and new frontiers in precision glioma surgery.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Review
- Real-time intraoperative confocal laser endomicroscopy with on-site neuropathologist consultation for glioma margin assessment: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2026Article
- Real-timeFrontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence prediction of nonenhancing brain tumor malignancy based onFrontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical application of confocal laser endomicroscopy in neurosurgery: a scoping review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
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
Objective: Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), a handheld imaging technology, provides intraoperative real-time cellular resolution examination of tissue architecture. We evaluated the feasibility and diagnostic capability of the first clinically approved CLE system for intraoperative Methods: A total of 50 patients who were to undergo brain tumor surgery were prospectively enrolled. CLE images were interpreted by one CLE-experienced neuropathologist as lesional, non-lesional, or non-interpretable and compared to tissue histology acquired at the same location under neuronavigation. Diagnostic accuracy of CLE imaging was calculated using permanent sections as the standard for comparison. The neuropathologist provided real-time image interpretation using a built-in telepathology consultation platform in 27 cases. Results: The final pathology of the tumors in these patients included 28 gliomas, 5 meningiomas, 3 metastatic brain tumors, 5 treatment-related changes, and 10 other primary intracranial tumors. A total of 13,535 interpretable images were acquired from 304 regions of interest (ROIs). The first informative images were acquired within 10.5 s after the initiation of CLE imaging for each ROI. Mean CLE imaging time per case was 8.6 min. Using telepathology consultation extended CLE imaging per case time by 3.8 min (p=0.005). Communication between neurosurgeon and neuropathologist lasted 3.9 min per ROI. Overall sensitivity and specificity of CLE imaging were 93% and 81%, respectively. The specificity differed significantly between core and margin ROIs in glioma cases (93% vs. 50%, p=0.039). Diagnostic performance was not statistically different between new and recurrent glioma cases or between glioma and other tumor types. Conclusions: The clinically approved CLE system allows intraoperative
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.