ArticleBMJ open2021
The PROGRAM study: awake mapping versus asleep mapping versus no mapping for high-grade glioma resections: study protocol for an international multicenter prospective three-arm cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
The SAFE-Trial: Safe Surgery for Glioblastoma Multiforme: Awake Craniotomy Versus Surgery Under General Anesthesia. A Multicenter Prospective Randomised Controlled Study
The PROGRAM-study: Awake Mapping Versus Asleep Mapping Versus No Mapping for Glioblastoma Resections
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Awake versus asleep craniotomy for eloquent glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Surgical characteristics and postoperative outcomes in a retrospective cohort study of patients with molecularly defined oligodendroglioma.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Intraoperative functional brain mapping for glioma surgery: a comprehensive review of the University of California San Francisco mapping protocol.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Review
- Review
- Systematic Review Between Resting-State fMRI and Task fMRI in Planning for Brain Tumour Surgery.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Review
- Surgical Management and Advances in the Treatment of Glioma.Seminars in neurology · 2023Review
- Impact of maximal extent of resection on postoperative deficits, patient functioning, and survival within clinically important glioblastoma subgroups.Neuro-oncology · 2023Article
- Safe surgery for glioblastoma: Recent advances and modern challenges.Neuro-oncology practice · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe main surgical dilemma during glioma resections is the surgeon's inability to accurately identify eloquent areas when the patient is under general anaesthesia without mapping techniques. Intraoperative stimulation mapping (ISM) techniques can be used to maximise extent of resection in eloquent areas yet simultaneously minimise the risk of postoperative neurological deficits. ISM has been widely implemented for low-grade glioma resections backed with ample scientific evidence, but this is not yet the case for high-grade glioma (HGG) resections. Therefore, ISM could thus be of important value in HGG surgery to improve both surgical and clinical outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is an international, multicenter, prospective three-arm cohort study of observational nature. Consecutive HGG patients will be operated with awake mapping, asleep mapping or no mapping with a 1:1:1 ratio. Primary endpoints are: (1) proportion of patients with National Institute of Health Stroke Scale deterioration at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after surgery and (2) residual tumour volume of the contrast-enhancing and non-contrast-enhancing part as assessed by a neuroradiologist on postoperative contrast MRI scans. Secondary endpoints are: (1) overall survival and (2) progression-free survival at 12 months after surgery; (3) oncofunctional outcome and (4) frequency and severity of serious adverse events in each arm. Total duration of the study is 5 years. Patient inclusion is 4 years, follow-up is 1 year. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee (METC Zuid-West Holland/Erasmus Medical Center; MEC-2020-0812). The results will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals and disseminated to patient organisations and media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov ID number NCT04708171 (PROGRAM-study), NCT03861299 (SAFE-trial).
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.