ArticleCureus2021
Retrospective Analysis and Comparison of 48 Intracranial Meningioma Cases As Two Groups According to Their Size.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This study aims to examine the possible demographic, clinical, and surgical differences between giant and smaller meningiomas. Materials and Methods Forty-eight meningioma patients who were operated on in our clinic between 2016-2020 were included in our study. Fourteen meningiomas larger than 5 cm in diameter were defined as giant meningiomas and placed in group 1. Thirty-four remaining meningiomas, with sizes less than 5 cm, were placed in group 2. These patients were evaluated regarding age, sex, localization, symptoms and neurological findings, surgical results, histopathology, and postoperative results. Results The most common localization in group 1 was falcine-parasagittal, whereas in group 2 it was convexity. Simpson's grade I resection rate in group 1 was 35.71%, while in group 2 this rate was 67.65%. In histopathological examination, transitional type meningiomas (35.71%) were the most common in group 1, whereas fibrous type meningiomas (32.35%) were seen the most in group 2. Group 1 Karnofsky Performance Scale score average was 75.71 preoperatively and 85.71 postoperatively. In group 2, the preoperative and postoperative average was 97.35 and 96.76, respectively. The comparative statistical analysis reflects that: A) Resection rates were significantly lower in the giant meningioma group. B) Similarly, Karnofsky Performance Scale scores were also lower than group 2. C) When statistical comparisons were made according to sex, age, localization, histopathological results, postoperative complications, and recurrence rates, no significant differences were observed. Conclusion The term "Giant Meningioma" is a type of distinction that is frequently made in the literature. However, the single major difference we see in our study was the surgical results. The general condition of patients before and after surgery may be more critical than others in giant meningiomas. Although surgical resection is the main form of treatment in giant meningiomas, the risks arising from the size of the tumor should be taken into account, and necessary plans should be made for a successful surgical intervention.
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.