Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25054902›Full record

ReviewCNS oncology2014

Modern cerebrospinal fluid analyses for the diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the CNS.

Alexander Baraniskin, Roland Schroers

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in CNS oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. [Special hematological diagnostics and therapy options for ocular lymphoma taking CNS involvement into account].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2015
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alexander BaraniskinDepartment of Medicine, Hematology & Oncology, Ruhr-University of Bochum, Germany.
Roland Schroers
Ruhr University Bochum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CNS lymphomas represent rare and aggressive variants of extranodal non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, which may present with diverse neurological symptoms and are often diagnostically challenging. Primary CNS lymphomas develop within the CNS and characteristically involve the brain, leptomeninges, eyes and, in rare cases, spinal cord. Secondary CNS lymphomas are characterized by expansion of systemic lymphomas to the CNS. Multimodal investigation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) comprises an important component of the diagnostic work-up for patients with suspected CNS lymphomas. Cytopathological examination of the CSF is still regarded as the 'gold standard' for the diagnosis of leptomeningeal malignant disease. However, cytopathology has only a low sensitivity in detecting leptomeningeal lymphoma involvement. Modern technologies including proteochemical and immunophenotypic studies by flow cytometry, and molecular genetic analyses of CSF may increase sensitivity and specificity, therefore, facilitating the diagnosis of CNS lymphomas. This review gives an overview and discussion of the current aspects of CSF analyses in CNS lymphomas.

Indexed as

Central Nervous System NeoplasmsHumansLymphoma, B-CellProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID25054902
PMCPMC6128195
OpenAlexW2046421280

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.