ReviewFrontiers in surgery2025
Clinical application of confocal laser endomicroscopy in neurosurgery: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) is an emerging intraoperative "optical biopsy" tool that enables real-time, Methods: This review followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase was performed. Eligible studies were prospective clinical studies of intraoperative CLE imaging in neurosurgical patients. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data on study design, CLE system, fluorophore use, pathology types, diagnostic performance, and workflow characteristics. Results: From 379 initial records, 19 studies met final inclusion criteria, with most (63%) in the past five years. Five CLE platforms were studied: CONVIVO (47%), FIVE1 (16%), Cellvizio (16%), EndoMAG 1 (11%), and cCeLL (11%). These CLE systems use different fluorophores that lead to distinct image characteristics. Across tumor types, CLE demonstrated diagnostic accuracy comparable with frozen section, with reported sensitivity up to 93% and specificity up to 94% in certain scenarios. CLE interpretation was feasible within minutes, faster than frozen section, and several studies reported successful integration with fluorescence-guided surgery and telepathology platforms. Conclusions: Clinical evidence supports the feasibility, safety, and efficiency of CLE in neurosurgery, offering rapid intraoperative histology without tissue removal. Current studies remain observational with varying study design and outcome definition, limiting assessment of the effectiveness and impact. Well-designed interventional trials are needed to determine CLE's definitive role as an intraoperative optical biopsy tool guiding tumor resection and patient outcomes.
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.