Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20179990›Full record

ReviewJournal of neuro-oncology2010

Treatment induced necrosis versus recurrent/progressing brain tumor: going beyond the boundaries of conventional morphologic imaging.

Rajan Jain, Jayant Narang, Pia M Sundgren, David Hearshen, Sona Saksena, Jack P Rock, Jorge Gutierrez, Tom Mikkelsen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Imaging radiation response in tumor and normal tissue.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2015
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rajan JainDivision of Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA. rajanj@rad.hfh.edu
Jayant Narang
Pia M Sundgren
David Hearshen
Sona Saksena
Jack P Rock
Jorge Gutierrez
Tom Mikkelsen
Henry Ford Hospital · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain tumor patients undergo various combinations therapies, leading to very complex and confusing imaging appearances on follow up MR imaging and hence, differentiating recurrent or progressing tumors from treatment induced necrosis or effects has always been a challenge in neuro-oncologic imaging. This particular topic has become more relevant these days because of the advent of newer anti-angiogenic and anti-neoplastic chemotherapeutic agents as well as use of salvage radiation therapy. Various clinically available functional imaging modalities can provide additional physiologic and metabolic information about the tumors which could be useful in identifying viable tumor from treatment induced necrosis and hence, can guide treatment planning. In this review we will discuss various functional neuro-imaging modalities, their advantages and limitations and also their utility in treatment planning.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsBrain MappingBrain NeoplasmsDiagnostic ImagingDisease ProgressionHumansNecrosisNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRadiation InjuriesAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID20179990
OpenAlexW2029196744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.