Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32091636›Full record

ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2020

Accuracy of a magnetic resonance imaging-based 3D printed stereotactic brain biopsy device in dogs.

Sarah Gutmann, Dirk Winkler, Marcel Müller, Robert Möbius, Jean-Pierre Fischer, Peter Böttcher, Ingmar Kiefer, Ronny Grunert, Thomas Flegel

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah GutmannDepartment of Small Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8909-8205
Dirk WinklerDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Clinic of Leipzig, Faculty of Medicine, Leipzig, Germany.
Marcel MüllerMedical Engineering, Fraunhofer Institute for Machine Tools and Forming Technology IWU, Dresden, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0248-3029
Robert MöbiusDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Clinic of Leipzig, Faculty of Medicine, Leipzig, Germany.
Jean-Pierre FischerDepartment of Orthopedics, Trauma and Plastic Surgery, University Clinic of Leipzig, Faculty of Medicine, Leipzig, Germany.
Peter BöttcherSmall Animal Clinic, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Ingmar KieferDepartment of Small Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Ronny GrunertMedical Engineering, Fraunhofer Institute for Machine Tools and Forming Technology IWU, Dresden, Germany.
Thomas FlegelDepartment of Small Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Leipzig University of Applied Sciences · DEUniversity Hospital Leipzig · DEFraunhofer Institute for Machine Tools and Forming Technology · DEFreie Universität Berlin · DE

Funding

German Research Foundation (DFG) Program of Open Access PublishingUniversity of Leipzig, Department of Neurosurgery, University Clinic of Leipzig, Faculty of Medicine, Leipzig, Germany
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrain biopsy of intracranial lesions is often necessary to determine specific therapy. The cost of the currently used stereotactic rigid frame and optical tracking systems for brain biopsy in dogs is often prohibitive or accuracy is not sufficient for all types of lesion.

objectivesTo evaluate the application accuracy of an inexpensive magnetic resonance imaging-based personalized, 3D printed brain biopsy device. ANIMALS: Twenty-two dog heads from cadavers were separated into 2 groups according to body weight (<15 kg, >20 kg).

methodsExperimental study. Two target points in each cadaver head were used (target point 1: caudate nucleus, target point 2: piriform lobe). Comparison between groups was performed using the independent Student's t test or the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U Test.

resultsThe total median target point deviation was 0.83 mm (range 0.09-2.76 mm). The separate median target point deviations for target points 1 and 2 in all dogs were 0.57 mm (range: 0.09-1.25 mm) and 0.85 mm (range: 0.14-2.76 mm), respectively. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: This magnetic resonance imaging-based 3D printed stereotactic brain biopsy device achieved an application accuracy that was better than the accuracy of most brain biopsy systems that are currently used in veterinary medicine. The device can be applied to every size and shape of skull and allows precise positioning of brain biopsy needles in dogs.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrain NeoplasmsCadaverDog DiseasesDogsMagnetic Resonance ImagingPedigreePrinting, Three-DimensionalReproducibility of ResultsStereotaxic TechniquesTomography, X-Ray Computed3D printingbrain biopsycanineMRIneurosurgerypersonalized

Identifiers

PMID32091636
PMCPMC7096628
OpenAlexW3008959571

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.