Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25393009›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance spectroscopy in brain tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wenzhi Wang, Yumin Hu, Peiou Lu, Yingci Li, Yunfu Chen, Mohan Tian, Lijuan Yu

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03009318 (Combination of 11C-MET PET and MRS in the Diagnosis of Glioma.), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT03009318 nacompletednot on this map

Combination of 11C-MET PET and MRS in the Diagnosis of Glioma.

TypeinterventionalSponsorHuashan HospitalRan2012 to 2017Enrolled100ConditionsGliomaArmstumors are confirmed by surgery and pathology
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Monitoring of the choline/lipid ratio byLasers in medical science · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Exploring Metabolism In Vivo Using EndogenousSeminars in nuclear medicine · 2017
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Wenzhi WangCenter of PET/CT-MRI, Cancer Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Yumin HuCenter of PET/CT-MRI, Cancer Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Peiou LuCenter of PET/CT-MRI, Cancer Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Yingci LiCenter of PET/CT-MRI, Cancer Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Yunfu ChenCenter of PET/CT-MRI, Cancer Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Mohan TianCenter of PET/CT-MRI, Cancer Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.
Lijuan YuCenter of PET/CT-MRI, Cancer Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectThe aim of this study was to determine the suitability of magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) for screening brain tumors, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data on the diagnostic performance of MRS.

methodsThe PubMed and PHMC databases were systematically searched for relevant studies up to December 2013. The sensitivities and specificities of MRS in individual studies were calculated and the pooled diagnostic accuracies, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), were assessed under a fixed-effects model.

resultsTwenty-four studies were included, comprising a total of 1013 participants. Overall, no heterogeneity of diagnostic effects was observed between studies. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRS were 80.05% (95% CI = 75.97%-83.59%) and 78.46% (95% CI: 73.40%-82.78%), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.78. Stratified meta analysis showed higher sensitivity and specificity in child than adult. CSI had higher sensitivity and SV had higher specificity. Higher sensitivity and specificity were obtained in short TE value.

conclusionAlthough the qualities of the studies included in the meta-analysis were moderate, current evidence suggests that MRS may be a valuable adjunct to magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing brain tumors, but requires selection of suitable technique and TE value.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance SpectroscopyAdultArea Under CurveAstrocytomaBrain NeoplasmsChildEpendymomaGliomaHumansNeuroectodermal TumorsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID25393009
PMCPMC4231038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.