Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28332014›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2017

Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with high-grade glioma, a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bart R J van Dijken, Peter Jan van Laar, Gea A Holtman, Anouk van der Hoorn

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 145 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
145citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

145 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 252 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. DEGRO practical guideline for central nervous system radiation necrosis part 1: classification and a multistep approach for diagnosis.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2022
    Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Clinical Utility of [AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2026
    Article
  20. Review

85 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bart R J van DijkenUniversity Medical Center Groningen Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, P. O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Peter Jan van LaarUniversity Medical Center Groningen Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, P. O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Gea A HoltmanUniversity Medical Center Groningen, Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Anouk van der HoornUniversity Medical Center Groningen Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, P. O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. a.van.der.hoorn@umcg.nl.
University Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTreatment response assessment in high-grade gliomas uses contrast enhanced T1-weighted MRI, but is unreliable. Novel advanced MRI techniques have been studied, but the accuracy is not well known. Therefore, we performed a systematic meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of anatomical and advanced MRI for treatment response in high-grade gliomas.

methodsDatabases were searched systematically. Study selection and data extraction were done by two authors independently. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate random effects model when ≥5 studies were included.

resultsAnatomical MRI (five studies, 166 patients) showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 68% (95%CI 51-81) and 77% (45-93), respectively. Pooled apparent diffusion coefficients (seven studies, 204 patients) demonstrated a sensitivity of 71% (60-80) and specificity of 87% (77-93). DSC-perfusion (18 studies, 708 patients) sensitivity was 87% (82-91) with a specificity of 86% (77-91). DCE-perfusion (five studies, 207 patients) sensitivity was 92% (73-98) and specificity was 85% (76-92). The sensitivity of spectroscopy (nine studies, 203 patients) was 91% (79-97) and specificity was 95% (65-99).

conclusionAdvanced techniques showed higher diagnostic accuracy than anatomical MRI, the highest for spectroscopy, supporting the use in treatment response assessment in high-grade gliomas. KEY POINTS: • Treatment response assessment in high-grade gliomas with anatomical MRI is unreliable • Novel advanced MRI techniques have been studied, but diagnostic accuracy is unknown • Meta-analysis demonstrates that advanced MRI showed higher diagnostic accuracy than anatomical MRI • Highest diagnostic accuracy for spectroscopy and perfusion MRI • Supports the incorporation of advanced MRI in high-grade glioma treatment response assessment.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingGliomaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopySensitivity and SpecificityGliomaMagnetic resonance imagingMagnetic resonance spectroscopyMeta-analysisTreatment response

Identifiers

PMID28332014
PMCPMC5579204
OpenAlexW2599701051

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.