Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25586425›Full record

ReviewCNS oncology2015

Assessing MGMT methylation status and its current impact on treatment in glioblastoma.

Anna S Berghoff, Johannes A Hainfellner, Christine Marosi, Matthias Preusser

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in CNS oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Potential Epigenetic-Based Therapeutic Targets for Glioma.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2018
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Zinc and zinc-containing biomolecules in childhood brain tumors.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2016
    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

4 authors.

Anna S BerghoffDepartment of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Johannes A Hainfellner
Christine Marosi
Matthias Preusser

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

MGMT promoter methylation status is a strong and independent prognostic factor in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and a clinically relevant predictive marker in the subpopulation of elderly glioblastoma patients. However, there is still lack of consensus on the optimal assay for reliable MGMT promoter methylation testing and a variety of test are being used in different laboratories. Pyrosequencing is the only method for which an adequately high analytical performance (high intra- and interlaboratory repeatability and reproducibility) has been demonstrated in a fully published ring trial. For clinical decision-making MGMT promoter methylation testing should be performed only in experienced laboratories using meticulous validation of assay accuracy. Ideally, such laboratories should undergo regular accreditation through a quality control consortium.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDNA Modification MethylasesGlioblastomaHumansMethylationDNA Modification MethylasesbiomarkergliomaMGMT promoter methylationO6-methylguanine-methyltransferasetemozolomide

Identifiers

PMID25586425
PMCPMC6093023

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.