SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2025
Rapid evaporative ionization mass spectrometry in surgery: a systematic review.
Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Precision Medicine and Artificial Intelligence in Next-Generation Cancer Surgery: A Comprehensive Analysis of Clinical Applications, Therapeutic Outcomes, and Implementation Strategies.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Pooled it
- Intraoperative Mass Spectrometry in Oncology: Technologies, Clinical Applications, and Challenges.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid evaporative ionization mass spectrometry (REIMS) is an emerging technology facilitating real-time intraoperative tissue identification during surgery. This review aims to discuss the applications and reported outcomes of REIMS technology in a surgical context.
methodsA systematic review was performed using four electronic databases that were searched in August 2025: MEDLINE, Emcare, Embase, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed, included five or more patients, and evaluated REIMS technology in the context of a surgical specialty or pathology. Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews before commencing the review (CRD42024546741).
resultsA total of 344 records underwent initial screening, with 26 studies included. Included articles originated from seven countries and applied REIMS to eight surgical specialties. Twenty-three of the included articles used REIMS to identify cancerous tissue. All included studies reported both qualitative and quantitative outcomes. Included studies demonstrated a variety of surgical applications with promising results with regard to accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. Both ex vivo and in vivo applications were explored, but limited in vivo data was reported and logistical limitations were identified.
conclusionMost of the evidence supporting the use of REIMS in surgery originates from an ex vivo environment. Current limitations of the technique include equipment logistics and the complexity of interpretation of data and further in vivo studies with larger patient numbers are required to support more widespread application.
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.