ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Cross-software comparison shows strong agreement for quantitative indocyanine green fluorescence angiography in reconstructive surgery.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Quantitative indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (Q-ICG-FA) has emerged as a promising tool for objective intraoperative perfusion assessment, yet there remains uncertainty regarding its reproducibility across different software platforms. This study aimed to evaluate the agreement of key Q-ICG-FA parameters across two independent software platforms using identical ICG-FA recordings. Methods: Eighty ICG-FA recordings from reconstructive procedures were analyzed using two software platforms: AMS and EPA. Both programs generated fluorescence-time curves (FTCs) and calculated seven perfusion parameters. The primary outcome was time-to-peak (TTP). Secondary outcomes included T Results: Excellent agreement was observed for TTP (ICC = 0.979, 95% CI: 0.967-0.987) and normalized mean slope inflow (ICC = 0.944, 95% CI: 0.913-0.964). Good to excellent agreement was found for T Conclusion: These results suggest that TTP and normalized mean slope inflow may be reliable candidates for defining quantitative perfusion thresholds, although further clinical validation is needed.
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.