Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28001091›Full record

ReviewCNS oncology2017

Treatment options for recurrent high-grade gliomas.

Harjus S Birk, Seunggu J Han, Nicholas A Butowski

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in CNS oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  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

3 authors.

Harjus S BirkDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Seunggu J HanDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Nicholas A ButowskiDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-grade gliomas are aggressive brain tumors encompassing Grade III and IV classifications. Of these, glioblastoma (GB) is the most malignant with a high rate of recurrence after initial resection. Although standard treatment does exist for newly diagnosed GBs, therapeutic strategies for recurrent GB are less solidified. However, mounting evidence describes the role of re-resection, bevacizumab, chemotherapy, targeted molecular therapies, immunotherapeutic approaches and radiotherapy in recurrent GB management. This review article provides analysis of the aforementioned therapies, through assessing their effect on overall survival. Because GB tumor heterogeneity is prevalent there is a constant need to investigate therapies targeting recurrence. Studies evaluating both therapeutic targets and strategies for high-grade gliomas are and will remain invaluable.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsBrain NeoplasmsGliomaHumansImmunologic FactorsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalReoperationAntineoplastic AgentsImmunologic Factorsglioblastomahigh-grade gliomasoverall survivalprogression-free survivalrecurrence treatment

Identifiers

PMID28001091
PMCPMC6027924

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.