ArticleCureus2017
Combining Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Diagnosing Focal Brain Lesions in Children.
Article in Cureus, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction We attempted to find the sensitivity and specificity of various pediatric brain masses in the Pakistani population while keeping histopathology or clinical diagnosis as the gold standard. Methods This was a retrospective study that was conducted from January 2007 to January 2016. We reviewed the records of 204 patients that presented to the radiology department of Aga Khan University Hospital (AKUH). Out of the 204, 135 pediatric patients in the 0-18 age group with focal brain lesions who underwent magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) and a biopsy or clinical diagnosis were included. If histopathology was available, it was taken as the gold standard test; otherwise, clinical diagnosis was considered the gold standard. Results We had a total of 135 patients, of which 71 (52.6%) were male and 64 (47.4%) were female. The mean age represented was 7.2 ± 4.5 years with a range of 1-18 years. We found radiology (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRS) to have a 91.7% sensitivity and a 94.3% specificity for tumors. For leukodystrophy, there was a 64.3% sensitivity and a 97.3% specificity. On the other hand, infection and mitochondrial disorders had sensitivities of 35.7% and 21.7%, respectively, and specificities of 98.9% and 97.1%, respectively. The category labeled "others" had a sensitivity of 27.4% and a specificity of 86.0%. Conclusion A combination of MRI and MRS was highly sensitive and specific for tumors. For infections, leukodystrophy, mitochondrial disorders, and the category of "others," it was highly specific but poorly sensitive.
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.