Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26346755›Full record

ReviewBehavioural neurology2015

Management of Gliomas: Overview of the Latest Technological Advancements and Related Behavioral Drawbacks.

L Ganau, M Paris, G K Ligarotti, M Ganau

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Behavioural neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Choice of intraoperative ultrasound adjuncts for brain tumor surgery.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

4 authors.

L GanauSchool of Medicine, University of Cagliari, 09124 Cagliari, Italy.
M ParisSt Thomas Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London SE1 7EH, UK.
G K LigarottiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Niguarda Cà Granda Hospital, 20162 Milan, Italy.
M GanauDepartment of Surgical Science, University of Cagliari, 09124 Cagliari, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advancements in basic sciences and the availability of sophisticated technological aids to surgical removal of gliomas have led over the last few years to the rise of innovative surgical strategies, the identification of better prognostic/predictive biomolecular factors, and the development of novel drugs and all are meant to profoundly impact the outcome of patients diagnosed with these aggressive tumours. Unfortunately, the treatment protocols available nowadays still confer only a small survival advantage at a potentially high cost in terms of overall well-being. In this review we identified the potential and limits of the most promising research trends in the management of glioma patients, also highlighting the related externalities. Finally, we focused our attention on the imbalance between the technical and behavioral aspects pertinent to this research area, which ultimately represent the two sides of the same coin.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsDisease ManagementCentral Nervous System NeoplasmsGliomaHumans

Identifiers

PMID26346755
PMCPMC4546744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.