Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22028341›Full record

ReviewThe oncologist2011

Update on meningiomas.

Santosh Saraf, Bridget J McCarthy, J Lee Villano

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The oncologist, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Reproductive factors in relation to risk of brain tumors in women: an updated meta-analysis of 27 independent studies.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2014
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Santosh SarafDepartment of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Bridget J McCarthy
J Lee Villano

Funding

PHS HHS HHSN26100800766P
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although meningiomas are the most common tumor in the central nervous system, their incidence, epidemiology, and clinical outcomes have historically been poorly defined. This has been attributed to their benign course, difficulty obtaining histologic diagnosis, and lack of uniform database registration. Their clinical behavior can range from a silent incidentaloma to a lethal tumor. Projections of an aging population should raise medical awareness of an expectant rise in the incidence of meningiomas. This disease increases with advancing age, has a female predilection, and exposure to ionizing radiation is associated with a higher risk for disease development. There have been minimal advances in treatment, except in radiation therapy. Although no U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved systemic therapy exists, there are treatment options that include hydroxyurea and sandostatin. Currently, no molecularly targeted therapy has provided clinical benefit, although recurring molecular alterations are present and novel therapies are being investigated.

Indexed as

HumansMeningeal NeoplasmsMeningiomaNeoplasm GradingRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID22028341
PMCPMC3233296

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.