ArticleActa neurochirurgica2020
Accuracy of the neurosurgeons estimation of extent of resection in glioblastoma.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical management of Glioma Grade 4: technical update from the neuro-oncology section of the Italian Society of Neurosurgery (SINch®): a systematic review.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Prognostic Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Defined Extent of Surgical Resection in Dogs With Intracranial Meningiomas.Veterinary and comparative oncology · 2026Article
- Cerebrospinal fluid cfDNA-based molecular assessment of resection extent and prognosis in glioma.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- A Radiologist's Guide to IDH-Wildtype Glioblastoma for Efficient Communication With Clinicians: Part I-Essential Information on Preoperative and Immediate Postoperative Imaging.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Clinical characteristics, molecular reclassification trajectories and DNA methylation patterns of long- and short-term survivors of WHO grade II and III glioma.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Article
- DeepEOR: automated perioperative volumetric assessment of variable grade gliomas using deep learning.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Article
- Is It Worth Considering Multicentric High-Grade Glioma a Surgical Disease? Analysis of Our Clinical Experience and Literature Review.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2021Review
- Trimodal therapy in T2-4aN0M0 bladder cancer--How to select the best candidate?Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- The impact of timing of temozolomide chemoradiotherapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma on patient overall survival: A multicenter retrospective study.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe surgeons' estimate of the extent of resection (EOR) shows little accuracy in previous literature. Considering the developments in surgical techniques of glioblastoma (GBM) treatment, we hypothesize an improvement in this estimation. This study aims to compare the EOR estimated by the neurosurgeon with the EOR determined using volumetric analysis on the post-operative MR scan.
methodsPre- and post-operative tumor volumes were calculated through semi-automatic volumetric assessment by three observers. Interobserver agreement was measured using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A univariate general linear model was used to study the factors influencing the accuracy of estimation of resection percentage.
resultsICC was high for all three measurements: pre-operative tumor volume was 0.980 (0.969-0.987), post-operative tumor volume 0.974 (0.961-0.984), and EOR 0.947 (0.917-0.967). Estimation of EOR by the surgeon showed moderate accuracy and agreement. Multivariable analysis showed a statistically significant effect of operating neurosurgeon (p = 0.01), use of fluorescence (p < 0.001), and resection percentage (p < 0.001) on the accuracy of the EOR estimation.
conclusionAll measurements through semi-automatic volumetric analysis show a high interobserver agreement, suggesting this to be a reliable assessment of EOR. We found a moderate reliability of the surgeons' estimate of EOR. Therefore, (early) post-operative MRI scanning for evaluation of EOR remains paramount.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.