Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29692921›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2018

Evaluation of the added value of

Karen Manias, Simrandip K Gill, Niloufar Zarinabad, Paul Davies, Martin English, Daniel Ford, Lesley MacPherson, Ina Nicklaus-Wollenteit, Adam Oates, Guirish Solanki and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Karen ManiasInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Simrandip K GillInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Niloufar ZarinabadInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Paul DaviesInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Martin EnglishInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Daniel FordDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Lesley MacPhersonInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Ina Nicklaus-WollenteitInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Adam OatesInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Guirish SolankiInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Jenny AdamskiInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Martin WilsonInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Andrew C PeetInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
University of Birmingham · GBBirmingham Children's Hospital · GBQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-02-12-019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMagnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) aids noninvasive diagnosis of pediatric brain tumors, but use in clinical practice is not well documented. We aimed to review clinical use of MRS, establish added value in noninvasive diagnosis, and investigate potential impact on patient care.

methodsSixty-nine children with lesions imaged using MRS and reviewed by the tumor board from 2014 to 2016 met inclusion criteria. Contemporaneous MRI diagnosis, spectroscopy analysis, histopathology, and clinical information were reviewed. Final diagnosis was agreed on by the tumor board at study end.

resultsFive cases were excluded for lack of documented MRI diagnosis. The principal MRI diagnosis by pediatric radiologists was correct in 59%, increasing to 73% with addition of MRS. Of the 73%, 19.1% (95% CI, 9.1%-33.3%) were incorrectly diagnosed with MRI alone. MRS led to a significant improvement in correct diagnosis over all tumor types (

conclusionMRS can improve accuracy and confidence in noninvasive diagnosis of pediatric brain lesions in clinical practice. There is potential to improve outcomes through avoiding biopsy of indolent lesions, aiding tumor characterization, and facilitating earlier family discussions and treatment planning.

Indexed as

1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS)magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)metabolite profilesnoninvasive diagnosispediatric brain tumors

Identifiers

PMID29692921
PMCPMC5909808
OpenAlexW2613263386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.