Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33009990›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2021

Comparing navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation mapping and "gold standard" direct cortical stimulation mapping in neurosurgery: a systematic review.

Hanne-Rinck Jeltema, Ann-Katrin Ohlerth, Aranka de Wit, Michiel Wagemakers, Adrià Rofes, Roelien Bastiaanse, Gea Drost

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Contemporary surgical strategies for resection of intracranial gliomas.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Hanne-Rinck JeltemaDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, the Netherlands. j.r.jeltema@umcg.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3529-2707
Ann-Katrin OhlerthCenter for Language and Cognition Groningen, University of Groningen, Oude Kijk in 't Jatstraat 26, 9712 EK, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Aranka de WitFaculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Michiel WagemakersDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Adrià RofesCenter for Language and Cognition Groningen, University of Groningen, Oude Kijk in 't Jatstraat 26, 9712 EK, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Roelien BastiaanseCenter for Language and Cognition Groningen, University of Groningen, Oude Kijk in 't Jatstraat 26, 9712 EK, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Gea DrostDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this systematic review is to create an overview of the literature on the comparison of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) as a mapping tool to the current gold standard, which is (intraoperative) direct cortical stimulation (DCS) mapping. A search in the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and recommendations were used. Thirty-five publications were included in the review, describing a total of 552 patients. All studies concerned either mapping of motor or language function. No comparative data for nTMS and DCS for other neurological functions were found. For motor mapping, the distances between the cortical representation of the different muscle groups identified by nTMS and DCS varied between 2 and 16 mm. Regarding mapping of language function, solely an object naming task was performed in the comparative studies on nTMS and DCS. Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 10 to 100% and 13.3-98%, respectively, when nTMS language mapping was compared with DCS mapping. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) ranged from 17 to 75% and 57-100% respectively. The available evidence for nTMS as a mapping modality for motor and language function is discussed.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsNeurosurgeryBrain MappingHumansNeuronavigationProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesTranscranial Magnetic StimulationDCSDirect cortical stimulationMappingNavigated transcranial magnetic stimulationnTMS

Identifiers

PMID33009990
PMCPMC8338816

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.