ArticleOpen access Macedonian journal of medical sciences2015
Achieving Higher Diagnostic Results in Stereotactic Brain Biopsy by Simple and Novel Technique.
Article in Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcomes as a function of the number of samples taken during stereotactic needle biopsies: a meta-analysis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Preclinical and Clinical Use of Indigenously DevelopedACS pharmacology & translational science · 2023Review
- Deep learning-based prediction of H3K27M alteration in diffuse midline gliomas based on whole-brain MRI.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Radiomics and radiogenomics in gliomas: a contemporary update.British journal of cancer · 2021Review
- Texture Analysis in Cerebral Gliomas: A Review of the Literature.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeurosurgeons have preferred to perform the stereotactic biopsy for pathologic diagnosis when the intracranial pathology located eloquent areas and deep sites of the brain.
aimTo get a higher ratio of definite pathologic diagnosis during stereotactic biopsy and develop practical method. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe determined at least two different target points and two different trajectories to take brain biopsy during stereotactic biopsy. It is a different way from the conventional stereotactic biopsy method in which one point has been selected to take a biopsy. We separated our patients into two groups, group 1 (N=10), and group 2 (N= 19). We chose one target to take a biopsy in group 1, and two different targets and two different trajectories in group 2. In group 2, one patient underwent craniotomy due to hemorrhage at the site of the biopsy during tissue biting. However, none of the patients in both groups suffered any neurological complication related biopsy procedure.
resultsIn group 1, two of 10 cases, and, in group 2, fourteen of 19 cases had positive biopsy harvesting. These results showed statistically significant difference between group 1 and group 2 (P<0.05).
conclusionsRegarding these results, choosing more than one trajectories and taking at least six specimens from each target provides higher diagnostic rate in stereotaxic biopsy taking method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.