ReviewJournal of neuro-oncology2009
Current concepts in the evaluation and management of WHO grade II gliomas.
Review in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Magnetic resonance perfusion for differentiating low-grade from high-grade gliomas at first presentation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Health-related quality of life and cognitive functioning in adult patients with supratentorial WHO grade II glioma: status prior to therapy.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2011Trial
- Differentiation of Low-Grade Astrocytoma From Anaplastic Astrocytoma Using Radiomics-Based Machine Learning Techniques.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Involvement of the neural stem cell compartment by pediatric and adult gliomas: a retrospective review of 377 cases.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2015Article
- PROX1 is a predictor of survival for gliomas WHO grade II.British journal of cancer · 2011Article
- Oligodendroglial hamartoma: a potential source of misdiagnosis for oligodendroglioma.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past two decades, the accumulated clinical and research experience has improved our understanding the biology of WHO grade II gliomas (G2G). While there have been relatively few randomized clinical trials in this population, those that exist and the experience from clinical reports have enhanced our understanding of how these tumors progressively increase in size, accumulate additional genetic mutations and ultimately transform into high-grade lesions. Our ability to reliably predict the time sequence of this transformation remains a challenge; however, recent findings have started to clarify selection criteria for adjuvant treatment. G2G remain a fatal disease for many patients. Continued investigation into the biology of these lesions will likely provide the information needed to select more appropriate therapy based on biological and genetic differences in these unique lesions. Some of this information will be derived from the study of high-grade lesions. However, experience has shown that much of the work on high-grade lesions is also applicable to low-grade lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19357953What 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.