SynthesisEuropean radiology experimental2025
Radiofrequency identification tag localization of nonpalpable breast lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European radiology experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- RFID Technology for Intraoperative Localisation of Small Colorectal Tumours: Electromagnetic Analysis and Experimental Validation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePreoperative localization of nonpalpable breast lesions has traditionally been performed by wire-guided localization (WGL). Radiofrequency identification (RFID) tag localization provides a less invasive alternative. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate outcomes of RFID in terms of clinical utility, efficacy, and safety, also in comparison with WGL. MATERIALS AND
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, studies reporting on outcomes post-RFID tag localization, and comparing outcomes post-RFID tag localization and WGL were included. Positive margins and re-excision rates were estimated using meta-analyses of proportions. Further meta-analyses compared positive margins and re-excision rates between RFID tag localization and WGL. Random effects models were used.
resultsNineteen studies involving 3,234 patients were included. Localization was performed for 497 benign and 2,741 malignant lesions. No study reported failure to retrieve an inserted RFID tag. Failed localization rates ranged from 0.0 to 60.7% across studies. After RFID tag localization, the pooled rate of positive margins was 12% (95% confidence interval (CI) 10-15%) and the pooled re-excision rate was 13% (95% CI 10-16%) in 14 and 16 studies, respectively; heterogeneity was high, I
conclusionRFID tag localization provides an effective alternative to WGL. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This systematic review shows that RFID tag localization of nonpalpable breast lesions provides a less invasive, safe and effective alternative to WGL-guided localization for selected patients, considering its higher cost. Randomized trials are required to elucidate the benefit of RFID tag localization over WGL and other non-wire localization techniques. KEY POINTS: The pooled rates of positive margins and re-excision after RFID tag localization were 12% and 13%, respectively. RFID localization had significantly lower positive margin rates than wire-guided localization (WGL); however, no difference was observed in re-excision rate. RFID localization provides an effective alternative to WGL and may be of benefit in selected patients. Randomized trials are required to better elucidate the benefit of RFIS tag localization.
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.