Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30656531›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuro-oncology2019

Incidental intracranial meningiomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors and outcomes.

Abdurrahman I Islim, Midhun Mohan, Richard D C Moon, Nisaharan Srikandarajah, Samantha J Mills, Andrew R Brodbelt, Michael D Jenkinson

Erratum issuedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 80 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. AOpen life sciences · 2025
    Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Abdurrahman I IslimInstitute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. a.islim@liv.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9621-043X
Midhun MohanFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1865-8623
Richard D C MoonFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Nisaharan SrikandarajahInstitute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Samantha J MillsDepartment of Neuroradiology, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Andrew R BrodbeltDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Michael D JenkinsonInstitute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4587-2139

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncidental discovery accounts for 30% of newly-diagnosed intracranial meningiomas. There is no consensus on their optimal management. This review aimed to evaluate the outcomes of different management strategies for these tumors.

methodsUsing established systematic review methods, six databases were scanned up to September 2017. Pooled event proportions were estimated using a random effects model. Meta-regression of prognostic factors was performed using individual patient data.

resultsTwenty studies (2130 patients) were included. Initial management strategies at diagnosis were: surgery (27.3%), stereotactic radiosurgery (22.0%) and active monitoring (50.7%) with a weighted mean follow-up of 49.5 months (SD = 29.3). The definition of meningioma growth and monitoring regimens varied widely impeding relevant meta-analysis. The pooled risk of symptom development in patients actively monitored was 8.1% (95% CI 2.7-16.1). Associated factors were peritumoral edema (OR 8.72 [95% CI 0.35-14.90]) and meningioma diameter ≥ 3 cm (OR 34.90 [95% CI 5.17-160.40]). The pooled proportion of intervention after a duration of active monitoring was 24.8% (95% CI 7.5-48.0). Weighted mean time-to-intervention was 24.8 months (SD = 18.2). The pooled risks of morbidity following surgery and radiosurgery, accounting for cross-over, were 11.8% (95% CI 3.7-23.5) and 32.0% (95% CI 10.6-70.5) respectively. The pooled proportion of operated meningioma being WHO grade I was 94.0% (95% CI 88.2-97.9).

conclusionThe management of incidental meningioma varies widely. Most patients who clinically or radiologically progressed did so within 5 years of diagnosis. Intervention at diagnosis may lead to unnecessary overtreatment. Prospective data is needed to develop a risk calculator to better inform management strategies.

Indexed as

Incidental FindingsHumansMeningeal NeoplasmsMeningiomaPrognosisAsymptomaticIncidentalMeningiomaMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30656531
PMCPMC6449307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.