ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Beyond fluorescence intensity: a Minimum acquisition and reporting standard and emerging technologies for colorectal indocyanine green fluorescence angiography studies.
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
Background: Intraoperative indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) is increasingly utilized to assess bowel perfusion during colorectal anastomosis. Although recent multicenter randomized trials have yielded mixed findings, pooled randomized evidence and 2025 SAGES guidance indicate an overall benefit, particularly in left-sided and rectal surgery. However, acquisition protocols, interpretation criteria, and reported endpoints remain heterogeneous. Main message: ICG-FA reflects the dynamics of an intravascular dye signal and is affected by injection technique, hemodynamic status, camera geometry, display mode, and platform-specific processing. Visual interpretation shows substantial interobserver variability. Thus, single fluorescence-intensity snapshots are unstable for comparison. In contrast, time-intensity kinetics and spatial heterogeneity measures are more reproducible and physiologically meaningful. Among reported kinetic metrics, the time ratio (TR = T1/2Max/Tmax) is promising. However, current evidence is preliminary and needs multicenter validation. Proposal: We propose a practical minimum acquisition and reporting standard for colorectal ICG-FA studies as an expert-opinion framework for future consensus development. This includes consistent reporting of ICG administration, physiological status at assessment, imaging conditions, camera geometry, analysis methodology, measured outcomes, decision impact, and software/version details. We also describe other relevant approaches, such as laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI), hyperspectral imaging (HSI), and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted interpretation. Conclusions: The key question is no longer only whether ICG-FA should be used, but how its signal should be acquired, quantified, interpreted, and reported. Better standardization should improve comparability, support multicenter validation, and clarify where perfusion imaging adds the greatest clinical value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.