Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40520631›Full record

SynthesisPeerJ2025

The value of nanocarbon contrast methylene blue based on dye-based tracer technology in sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Luhua Xia, Zuowei Zou, Le Chong, Xinhua Wang, Zhanfei Dong, Yanping Zhao

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Efficacy of Nano-Carbon Tracing Versus Indocyanine Green in Lymph Node Detection for Minimally Invasive Colorectal Resection.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
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

6 authors.

Luhua Xia *Tumor Hospital Affiliated to Xinjiang Medical University, Key Laboratory of Oncology of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Urumqi, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China.
Zuowei Zou *National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Beijing, China.
Le ChongThe Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Department of Ultrasonography, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China.
Xinhua WangTumor Hospital Affiliated to Xinjiang Medical University, Key Laboratory of Oncology of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Urumqi, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China.
Zhanfei DongTumor Hospital Affiliated to Xinjiang Medical University, Key Laboratory of Oncology of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Urumqi, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China.
Yanping ZhaoTumor Hospital Affiliated to Xinjiang Medical University, Key Laboratory of Oncology of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Urumqi, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic value of nanocarbon suspensions and methylene blue injections in sentinel lymph node biopsies of patients with breast cancer based on the dye method. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library (Central) and Web of Science (SCI Expanded) databases was performed to determine the diagnostic value of carbon nanoparticles in Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM)) for identifying methylene blue in sentinel lymph node biopsies of patients with breast cancer. The QUADAS2 quality evaluation tool of Review Manager 5.4 was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Meta-Disc 1.4 software was used to calculate the extracted valid data and perform a heterogeneity test. STATA 14.0 software was selected to conduct a sensitivity analysis, and Deek's publication bias test was used for the included studies. Results: In 17 articles, the binding sensitivity of nanocarbons was 0.93 (0.90-0.95), the binding specificity was 0.98 (0.97-0.99), the binding sensitivity of methylene blue was 0.89 (0.85-0.92), and the binding specificity was 0.94 (0.92-0.95). The AUC value of the nanocarbon SROC was 0.9827 (SE = 0.0062), and the AUC value of methylene blue was 0.9495 (SE = 0.0139). Conclusion: Nanocarbon

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarbonContrast MediaMethylene BlueSentinel Lymph Node BiopsyClinical Trials as TopicColoring AgentsFemaleHumansNanoparticlesSensitivity and SpecificityCarbonColoring AgentsContrast MediaMethylene BlueBreast cancerDiagnostic valueMethylene blueNanocarbon suspension

Identifiers

PMID40520631
PMCPMC12166851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.