ArticleBioelectronic medicine2026
Virtual reality volumetric rendering versus cross-sectional imaging for pancreatic cancer resectability assessment: a pilot randomized controlled reader study.
Article in Bioelectronic medicine, 2026. 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.
- Evaluation of the OPTESK VR training simulator for gastric bleeding treatment.Bioelectronic medicine · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent imaging assessment for pancreatic cancer resectability demonstrates problematic inter-observer variability, with only fair-to-moderate agreement among experienced raters. Virtual reality technology offers stereoscopic three-dimensional visualization that may improve diagnostic accuracy and agreement. However, optimal visualization strategies for clinical adoption remain unclear.
methodsTen hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons from two high-volume centers were randomized 1:1 to assess twelve contrast-enhanced CT cases using either VR volumetric rendering or CSI. Primary outcomes included inter-rater agreement, diagnostic accuracy against expert reference standard, assessment time, and surgeon confidence. Statistical analysis employed Fleiss’ κ for inter-rater agreement and two-sided Mann–Whitney U tests on surgeon-level summary measures for between-group comparisons.
resultsCSI display on 2D screens achieved substantial inter-rater agreement for resectability assessment (κ = 0.609) while VR demonstrated only slight agreement (κ = 0.127). Diagnostic accuracy was superior with CSI (84.7% vs. 79.7%), with the most pronounced difference in resectability determination (83.3% vs. 58.3%, p = 0.033). VR users reported significantly lower confidence (4.85 ± 1.15 vs. 6.32 ± 0.77, p = 0.028). Assessment times were comparable between groups (median 313.5 s vs. 327.5 s, p = 1.00).
conclusionsIn this preliminary investigation, our VR visualization strategy demonstrated lower diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater agreement than CSI. However, prior studies suggest that VR systems employing alternative, hybrid visualization approaches may improve inter-rater agreement, indicating that visualization strategy, rather than VR technology per se, is the primary determinant of utility.
trial registrationDRKS00033932 (German Clinical Trials Register), registered prospectively.
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.