ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2021
Language Assessment in Multilingualism and Awake Neurosurgery.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping and anatomo-surgical techniques for language preservation in brain tumours (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Review
- A Rapid fMRI Paradigm for Localisation of the Language Network.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Intraoperative Language mapping in a Japanese-English-French trilingual patient with a left Temporal lobe glioma: a case report.Brain structure & function · 2025Article
- Language testing in awake craniotomy for brain tumor resection: A survey of current perioperative practice in the United Kingdom.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
- The British object and action naming test for intraoperative mapping (BOATIM): A standardised and clinically tested framework for awake brain surgery.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Language neuroscience in the operating room: neurosurgical considerations for multilingual brain tumor patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Editorial: Theories, methods, practices, and fields of digital social research.Frontiers in sociology · 2024Article
- Intraoperative Brain Mapping in Multilingual Patients: What Do We Know and Where Are We Going?Brain sciences · 2022Review
- Current Status of Neuromodulation-Induced Cortical Prehabilitation and Considerations for Treatment Pathways in Lower-Grade Glioma Surgery.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multilingualism has become a worldwide phenomenon that poses critical issues about the language assessment in patients undergoing awake neurosurgery in eloquent brain areas. The accuracy and sensitivity of multilingual perioperative language assessment procedures is crucial for a number of reasons: they should be appropriate to detect deficits in each of the languages spoken by the patient; they should be suitable to identify language-specific cortical regions; they should ensure that each of the languages of a multilingual patient is tested at an adequate and comparable level of difficulty. In clinical practice, a patient-tailored approach is generally preferred. This is a necessary compromise since it is impossible to predict all the possible language combinations spoken by individuals and thus the availability of standardized testing batteries is a potentially unattainable goal. On the other hand, this leads to high inconsistency in how different neurosurgical teams manage the linguistic features that determine similarity or distance between the languages spoken by the patient and that may constrain the neuroanatomical substrate of each language. The manuscript reviews the perioperative language assessment methodologies adopted in awake surgery studies on multilingual patients with brain tumor published from 1991 to 2021 and addresses the following issues: (1) The language selected for the general neuropsychological assessment of the patient. (2) The procedures adopted to assess the dimensions that may constrain language organization in multilingual speakers: age and type of acquisition, exposure, proficiency, and use of the different languages. (3) The type of preoperative language assessment used for all the languages spoken by the patient. (4) The linguistic tasks selected in the intraoperative setting. The reviewed data show a great heterogeneity in the perioperative clinical workup with multilingual patients. The only exception is the task used during language mapping, as the picture naming task is highly preferred. The review highlights that an objective and accurate description of both the linguistic profile of multilingual patients and the specific properties of the languages under scrutiny can profitably support clinical management and decision making in multilingual awake neurosurgery settings.
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.