Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28882867›Full record

SynthesisAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2017

Diagnostic Accuracy of Neuroimaging to Delineate Diffuse Gliomas within the Brain: A Meta-Analysis.

N Verburg, F W A Hoefnagels, F Barkhof, R Boellaard, S Goldman, J Guo, J J Heimans, O S Hoekstra, R Jain, M Kinoshita and 8 more

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

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

18 authors.

N VerburgFrom the Neurosurgical Center Amsterdam (N.V., F.W.A.H., W.P.V., P.C.D.W.H.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1048-1664
F W A HoefnagelsFrom the Neurosurgical Center Amsterdam (N.V., F.W.A.H., W.P.V., P.C.D.W.H.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8626-540X
F BarkhofDepartments of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (F.B., R.B., O.S.H.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3543-3706
R BoellaardDepartments of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (F.B., R.B., O.S.H.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0313-5686
S GoldmanService of Nuclear Medicine and PET/Biomedical Cyclotron Unit (S.G.), l'université libre de Bruxelles-Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9917-8735
J GuoShanghai Medical College (J.G.), Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9505-230X
J J HeimansNeurology (J.J.H., J.C.R.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7731-2588
O S HoekstraDepartments of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (F.B., R.B., O.S.H.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0767-2734
R JainDepartment of Radiology (R.J.), New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4879-0457
M KinoshitaDepartment of Neurosurgery (M.K.), Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7923-6902
P J W PouwelsPhysics and Medical Technology (P.J.W.P.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8430-0606
S J PriceAcademic Neurosurgery Division (S.J.P.), Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7535-3009
J C ReijneveldNeurology (J.J.H., J.C.R.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2257-3147
A StadlbauerDepartment of Neurosurgery (A.S.), University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8348-2620
W P VandertopFrom the Neurosurgical Center Amsterdam (N.V., F.W.A.H., W.P.V., P.C.D.W.H.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5417-0265
P WesselingPathology (P.W.), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5453-5201
A H ZwindermanDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (A.H.Z.), Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0361-3139
P C De Witt HamerFrom the Neurosurgical Center Amsterdam (N.V., F.W.A.H., W.P.V., P.C.D.W.H.) p.dewitthamer@vumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2988-8544

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrain imaging in diffuse glioma is used for diagnosis, treatment planning, and follow-up. PURPOSE: In this meta-analysis, we address the diagnostic accuracy of imaging to delineate diffuse glioma. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched studies of adults with diffuse gliomas and correlation of imaging with histopathology. STUDY SELECTION: Study inclusion was based on quality criteria. Individual patient data were used, if available. DATA ANALYSIS: A hierarchic summary receiver operating characteristic method was applied. Low- and high-grade gliomas were analyzed in subgroups. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-one studies described 3532 samples in 1309 patients. The mean Standard for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy score (13/25) indicated suboptimal reporting quality. For diffuse gliomas as a whole, the diagnostic accuracy was best with T2-weighted imaging, measured as area under the curve, false-positive rate, true-positive rate, and diagnostic odds ratio of 95.6%, 3.3%, 82%, and 152. For low-grade gliomas, the diagnostic accuracy of T2-weighted imaging as a reference was 89.0%, 0.4%, 44.7%, and 205; and for high-grade gliomas, with T1-weighted gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging as a reference, it was 80.7%, 16.8%, 73.3%, and 14.8. In high-grade gliomas, MR spectroscopy (85.7%, 35.0%, 85.7%, and 12.4) and LIMITATIONS: True-negative samples were underrepresented in these data, so false-positive rates are probably less reliable than true-positive rates. Multimodality imaging data were unavailable.

conclusionsThe diagnostic accuracy of commonly used imaging is better for delineation of low-grade gliomas than high-grade gliomas on the basis of limited evidence. Improvement is indicated from advanced techniques, such as MR spectroscopy and PET.

Indexed as

AdultBrainBrain NeoplasmsFemaleGliomaHumansMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyMaleMiddle AgedNeuroimagingROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID28882867
PMCPMC7963621

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.