Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30407363›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2018

An evidence-based approach to assess the accuracy of intravoxel incoherent motion imaging for the grading of brain tumors.

Wen-Fei Li, Chen Niu, Tahir Mehmood Shakir, Tao Chen, Ming Zhang, Zhanqiu Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. MRI biomarkers in neuro-oncology.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2021
    Review
  10. Perfusion-driven Intravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) MRI in Oncology: Applications, Challenges, and Future Trends.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2021
    Review
  11. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wen-Fei LiDepartment of Radiology, The First Hospital of Qinhuangdao, Hebei.
Chen NiuDepartment of Radiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'An Jiaotong University, Shaanxi.
Tahir Mehmood ShakirDepartment of Radiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'An Jiaotong University, Shaanxi.
Tao ChenDepartment of Radiology, Xiang Yang Central Hospital, Hubei, China.
Ming ZhangDepartment of Radiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'An Jiaotong University, Shaanxi.
Zhanqiu WangDepartment of Radiology, The First Hospital of Qinhuangdao, Hebei.
First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University · CNFirst Hospital of Qinhuangdao · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferentiation of high-grade gliomas (HGGs) and low-grade gliomas (LGGs) is an important clinical problem because treatment strategies vary greatly. This study was performed to investigate the potential diagnostic value of incoherent intravoxel motion imaging (IVIM) to distinguish HGG from LGG by meta-analysis.

methodsA computerized search of the literature was performed using the free-access PubMed database, Web of Science, and Chinese biomedical database, and relevant articles until September 18, 2018 that used IVIM to distinguish HGG from LGG were included. All analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata. Mean difference (MD) at 95% confidence interval (CI) of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), diffusion coefficient value (D), perfusion fraction value (f), and perfusion coefficient value (D*) were summarized.

resultsNine studies were used for general data pooling. In the tumor parenchyma (TP) regions, subgroup analysis revealed D* in HGG is higher than in LGG (MD = 1.19, P = .002), and D in HGG is lower than in LGG (MD = -1.06, P = .001). However, no significant difference in f (MD = 0.89, P = .056) was detected between HGG and LGG. In the white matter regions, HGG had higher D* (MD = 0.76, P = .04) compared with LGG, while no marked differences between the D value (P = .07) and f (P = .09) values.

conclusionThe present meta-analysis shows that the ADC, D, and D* values derived from IVIM may be useful in differentiating HGG from LGG. Considering the small sample of this study, we need to be cautious when interpreting the results of this study. Other prospective and large-sample randomized controlled trials were needed to establish the value of IVIM in differentiating HGG from LGG.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBrainBrain NeoplasmsDiagnosis, DifferentialDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingGliomaHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm Grading

Identifiers

PMID30407363
PMCPMC6250525
OpenAlexW2899634500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.