ReviewEuropean burn journal2026
The Diagnostic Value of Indocyanine Green in the Assessment of Depth of Burn Injuries: A Systematic Review.
Review in European burn journal, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate assessment of burn depth remains a clinical challenge and requires specific training. To improve diagnostic accuracy, various technical methods have been developed. This review summarizes current evidence on indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging for burn depth assessment and compares its performance with clinical, histological, and alternative modalities such as Laser Doppler imaging (LDI).
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane and Google Scholar to identify studies evaluating burn depth using ICG fluorescence imaging. Studies from 1995 to 2024 were included if they compared ICG to at least one reference method (clinical assessment, biopsy, or other technical modalities). Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The study selection workflow is shown in the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for systematic reviews.
resultsNine studies with a total of 151 patients, published between 1995 and 2024, met the inclusion criteria. Results were synthesized descriptively due to substantial methodological heterogeneity. Two studies reported high accuracy of ICG fluorescence imaging for identifying nonviable tissue and supporting surgical planning, although differentiation between superficial and deep partial-thickness burns (SPTBs/DPTBs) was inconsistent. In one study, ICGA-guided assessment reduced or avoided excision in 10 of 20 burn sites (50%). Yet heterogeneity in measurement protocols, cut-off values, and reference standards limited comparability across studies.
conclusionsDue to its limited accuracy in differentiating SPTBs and DPTBs, ICG imaging has restricted utility for burn depth assessment, though it may still offer intraoperative benefit during necrosectomy. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International prospective register of SRs by the National Institute of Health Research (CRD420251161190).
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.