Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29247963›Full record

SynthesisEpilepsy & behavior : E&B2018

ECoG high-gamma modulation versus electrical stimulation for presurgical language mapping.

Ravindra Arya, Paul S Horn, Nathan E Crone

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Epilepsy & behavior : E&B, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Visualization of functional and effective connectivity underlying auditory descriptive naming.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Cortical and white matter substrates supporting visuospatial working memory.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ravindra AryaComprehensive Epilepsy Center, Division of Neurology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. Electronic address: Ravindra.Arya@cchmc.org.
Paul S HornComprehensive Epilepsy Center, Division of Neurology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Nathan E CroneDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

Temporal-spatial mapping of cortical networks important for human cognitionR01NS091139 · NINDS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI CRONE, NATHAN E · 2015 to 2019
$1.8M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS091139
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis meta-analysis compared diagnostic validity of electrocorticographic (ECoG) high-γ modulation (HGM) with electrical stimulation mapping (ESM) for presurgical language localization.

methodsFrom a structured literature search, studies with electrode level data comparing ECoG HGM and ESM for language localization were included in the meta-analysis. Outcomes included global measures of diagnostic validity: area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR); as well as pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Clinical and technical determinants of sensitivity/specificity were explored.

resultsFifteen studies were included in qualitative synthesis, and 10 studies included in the meta-analysis (number of patients 1-17, mean age 10.3-53.6years). Overt picture naming was the most commonly used task for language mapping with either method. Electrocorticographic high-γ modulation was analyzed at 50-400Hz with different bandwidths in individual studies. For ESM, pulse duration, train duration, and maximum current varied greatly among studies. Sensitivity (0.23-0.99), specificity (0.48-0.96), and DOR (1.45-376.28) varied widely across studies. The pooled estimates are: sensitivity 0.61 (95% CI 0.44, 0.76), specificity 0.79 (95% CI 0.68, 0.88), and DOR 6.44 (95% CI 3.47, 11.94). Area under the SROC curve was 0.77. Results of bivariate meta-regression were limited by small samples for individual variables.

conclusionElectrocorticographic high-γ modulation is a specific but not sensitive method for language localization compared with gold-standard ESM. Given the pooled DOR of 6.44 and AUC of 0.77, ECoG HGM can fairly reliably ascertain electrodes overlying ESM cortical language sites.

Indexed as

LanguageAdolescentAdultBrain MappingChildChild, PreschoolElectric StimulationElectrocorticographyEpilepsyFemaleGamma RhythmHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedPreoperative CareEpilepsy surgeryFunctional brain mappingLanguage localization

Identifiers

PMID29247963
PMCPMC5815885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.