Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31560705›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Voxelwise statistical methods to localize practice variation in brain tumor surgery.

Roelant Eijgelaar, Philip C De Witt Hamer, Carel F W Peeters, Frederik Barkhof, Marcel van Herk, Marnix G Witte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Roelant EijgelaarCluster Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1765-4444
Philip C De Witt HamerNeurosurgical Center Amsterdam, Brain Tumor Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Carel F W PeetersDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frederik BarkhofDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marcel van HerkDivision of Cancer Sciences, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Marnix G WitteCluster Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDuring resections of brain tumors, neurosurgeons have to weigh the risk between residual tumor and damage to brain functions. Different perspectives on these risks result in practice variation. We present statistical methods to localize differences in extent of resection between institutions which should enable to reveal brain regions affected by such practice variation.

methodsSynthetic data were generated by simulating spheres for brain, tumors, resection cavities, and an effect region in which a likelihood of surgical avoidance could be varied between institutions. Three statistical methods were investigated: a non-parametric permutation based approach, Fisher's exact test, and a full Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) model. For all three methods the false discovery rate (FDR) was determined as a function of the cut-off value for the q-value or the highest density interval, and receiver operating characteristic and precision recall curves were created. Sensitivity to variations in the parameters of the synthetic model were investigated. Finally, all these methods were applied to retrospectively collected data of 77 brain tumor resections in two academic hospitals.

resultsFisher's method provided an accurate estimation of observed FDR in the synthetic data, whereas the permutation approach was too liberal and underestimated FDR. AUC values were similar for Fisher and Bayes methods, and superior to the permutation approach. Fisher's method deteriorated and became too liberal for reduced tumor size, a smaller size of the effect region, a lower overall extent of resection, fewer patients per cohort, and a smaller discrepancy in surgical avoidance probabilities between the different surgical practices. In the retrospective patient data, all three methods identified a similar effect region, with lower estimated FDR in Fisher's method than using the permutation method.

conclusionsDifferences in surgical practice may be detected using voxel statistics. Fisher's test provides a fast method to localize differences but could underestimate true FDR. Bayesian MCMC is more flexible and easily extendable, and leads to similar results, but at increased computational cost.

Indexed as

AdultBayes TheoremBiometryBrainBrain NeoplasmsComputer SimulationGlioblastomaHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMagnetic Resonance ImagingMarkov ChainsMonte Carlo MethodNeurosurgical ProceduresPractice Patterns, Physicians'Retrospective StudiesROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID31560705
PMCPMC6764660

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.