ArticleHuman brain mapping2020
Invasive versus non-invasive mapping of the motor cortex.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Capable of Detecting Different Motor Cell Clusters Within the Precentral Gyrus Using a Single Pulse Protocol?Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Intraoperative electrocorticography-guided glioma surgery: impact on extent of resection and functional preservation.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation-Electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) in Neurosurgery: Unexplored Path Towards Personalized Brain Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Preoperative nTMS analysis: a sensitive tool to detect imminent motor deficits in brain tumor patients.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Review
- Article
- Preoperative mapping techniques for brain tumor surgery: a systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Connectivity defines the distinctive anatomy and function of the hand-knob area.Brain communications · 2024Article
- Assessing the feasibility of mapping the tibialis anterior muscle with navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation in neuro-oncologic patients.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Advanced Imaging Techniques for Newly Diagnosed and Recurrent Gliomas.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Review
- Surgery of Motor Eloquent Glioblastoma Guided by TMS-Informed Tractography: Driving Resection Completeness Towards Prolonged Survival.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Improving the efficacy and reliability of rTMS language mapping by increasing the stimulation frequency.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
- Mapping of Motor Function with Neuronavigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: A Review on Clinical Application in Brain Tumors and Methods for Ensuring Feasible Accuracy.Brain sciences · 2021Review
- Article
- Unsupervised machine learning can delineate central sulcus by using the spatiotemporal characteristic of somatosensory evoked potentials.Journal of neural engineering · 2021Article
- Invasive versus non-invasive mapping of the motor cortex.Human brain mapping · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Precise and comprehensive mapping of somatotopic representations in the motor cortex is clinically essential to achieve maximum resection of brain tumours whilst preserving motor function, especially since the current gold standard, that is, intraoperative direct cortical stimulation (DCS), holds limitations linked to the intraoperative setting such as time constraints or anatomical restrictions. Non-invasive techniques are increasingly relevant with regard to pre-operative risk-assessment. Here, we assessed the congruency of neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) with DCS. The motor representations of the hand, the foot and the tongue regions of 36 patients with intracranial tumours were mapped pre-operatively using nTMS and fMRI and by intraoperative DCS. Euclidean distances (ED) between hotspots/centres of gravity and (relative) overlaps of the maps were compared. We found significantly smaller EDs (11.4 ± 8.3 vs. 16.8 ± 7.0 mm) and better spatial overlaps (64 ± 38% vs. 37 ± 37%) between DCS and nTMS compared with DCS and fMRI. In contrast to DCS, fMRI and nTMS mappings were feasible for all regions and patients without complications. In summary, nTMS seems to be the more promising non-invasive motor cortex mapping technique to approximate the gold standard DCS results.
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.