SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Fluorescence-guided versus non-fluorescence-guided resection in high-grade glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival outcomes.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluorescence-guided resection (FGR) in high-grade glioma surgeries improves tumor visualization and resection extent. Although resection completeness is well documented, its impact on survival varies across studies due to confounding factors and heterogeneity. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the relationship between fluorescence guidance and survival, distinguishing unadjusted from adjusted effects. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science found studies comparing FGR and non-FGR in adult high-grade glioma patients. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed separately. Risk of Bias was assessed with ROBINS-I and RoB 2, and evidence certainty with GRADE. Seventeen studies involving a total of 2,937 patients (1,466 who underwent FGR and 1,471 who underwent non-FGR) met the inclusion criteria. In unadjusted analyses, FGR was associated with a statistically significant improvement in overall survival (HR 0.72, 95% CI [0.57–0.91]; I2 47.2%), compared to non-FGR. However, in analyses adjusted for key prognostic variables, this association was diminished and no longer reached statistical significance (aHR 0.63, 95% CI [0.30–1.30]; I2 80.3%). Progression-free survival analyses indicated trends toward benefit, although these were not statistically significant in both unadjusted (HR 0.70, 95% CI [0.26–1.89]; I2 = 57.9%) and adjusted models (aHR 0.86, 95% CI [0.29–2.54]; I2 = 80.3%), with notable heterogeneity observed. Subgroup analyses comparing 5-ALA and white-light surgery yielded similar patterns, with effects attenuated following adjustment. The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low. FGR initially demonstrated superior survival outcomes in high-grade glioma; however, the significance diminished upon adjustment for confounders. It primarily serves as an adjunct to surgical procedures to facilitate safe and maximal resection rather than directly enhancing survival. Further randomized investigations incorporating molecular stratification are essential to elucidate its influence on long-term survival.
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.