Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33063012›Full record

ReviewNeuro-oncology advances

Awake craniotomy for resection of supratentorial glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

John J Y Zhang, Keng Siang Lee, Mathew R Voisin, Shawn L Hervey-Jumper, Mitchel S Berger, Gelareh Zadeh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Anesthesia for awake craniotomy: a case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

6 authors.

John J Y ZhangYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-8567-3807
Keng Siang LeeBristol Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2308-0579
Mathew R VoisinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1191-9579
Shawn L Hervey-JumperDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4699-260X
Mitchel S BergerDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1983-4892
Gelareh ZadehDepartment of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6637-4502

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe goal of glioblastoma (GBM) surgery is to maximize the extent of resection (EOR) while minimizing postoperative neurological complications. Awake craniotomy (AC) has been demonstrated to achieve this goal for low-grade gliomas in or near eloquent areas. However, the efficacy of AC for GBM resection has not been established. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the outcomes of AC for surgical resection of GBM using a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.

methodsSystematic searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed were performed from database inception to September 14, 2019 for published studies reporting outcomes of AC for GBM resection. Outcome measures analyzed included EOR and the event rate of postoperative neurological deficits.

resultsA total of 1928 unique studies were identified. Fourteen studies reporting 278 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Mean age of patients was 46.9 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43.9-49.9). Early and late postoperative neurological deficits occurred in 34.5% (95% CI: 21.9-48.2) and 1.9% (95% CI: 0.0-9.2) of patients, respectively. Pooled percentage of gross total resection (GTR) was 74.7% (95% CI: 66.7-82.1), while the pooled percentage reduction in tumor volume was 95.3% (95% CI: 92.2-98.4).

conclusionsLimited current evidence suggests that the use of AC for resection of supratentorial GBM is associated with a low rate of persistent neurological deficits while achieving an acceptable rate of GTR. Our findings demonstrate the potential viability of AC in GBM resection and highlight the need for further research on this topic.

Indexed as

awake craniotomyextent of resectionglioblastomaneurological deficit

Identifiers

PMID33063012
PMCPMC7542985

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.