Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36291038›Full record

SynthesisBiosensors2022

Image Quality Improvement Techniques and Assessment Adequacy in Clinical Optoacoustic Imaging: A Systematic Review.

Ioannis Dimaridis, Patmaa Sridharan, Vasilis Ntziachristos, Angelos Karlas, Leontios Hadjileontiadis

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Biosensors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ioannis DimaridisDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-6973-3689
Patmaa SridharanChair of Biological Imaging, Central Institute for Translational Cancer Research (TranslaTUM), School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Vasilis NtziachristosChair of Biological Imaging, Central Institute for Translational Cancer Research (TranslaTUM), School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Angelos KarlasChair of Biological Imaging, Central Institute for Translational Cancer Research (TranslaTUM), School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Leontios HadjileontiadisDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi P.O. Box 127788, United Arab Emirates.

Funding

Khalifa University of Science and Technology CIRA-2020-031 (8474000280)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optoacoustic imaging relies on the detection of optically induced acoustic waves to offer new possibilities in morphological and functional imaging. As the modality matures towards clinical application, research efforts aim to address multifactorial limitations that negatively impact the resulting image quality. In an endeavor to obtain a clear view on the limitations and their effects, as well as the status of this progressive refinement process, we conduct an extensive search for optoacoustic image quality improvement approaches that have been evaluated with humans in vivo, thus focusing on clinically relevant outcomes. We query six databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and Google Scholar) for articles published from 1 January 2010 to 31 October 2021, and identify 45 relevant research works through a systematic screening process. We review the identified approaches, describing their primary objectives, targeted limitations, and key technical implementation details. Moreover, considering comprehensive and objective quality assessment as an essential prerequisite for the adoption of such approaches in clinical practice, we subject 36 of the 45 papers to a further in-depth analysis of the reported quality evaluation procedures, and elicit a set of criteria with the intent to capture key evaluation aspects. Through a comparative criteria-wise rating process, we seek research efforts that exhibit excellence in quality assessment of their proposed methods, and discuss features that distinguish them from works with similar objectives. Additionally, informed by the rating results, we highlight areas with improvement potential, and extract recommendations for designing quality assessment pipelines capable of providing rich evidence.

Indexed as

Plant ExtractsQuality ImprovementHumansPlant Extractsbiomedical imagingclinical imagingimage qualitymolecular imagingphotoacoustics

Identifiers

PMID36291038
PMCPMC9599915

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.