Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34976300›Full record

ReviewOxidative medicine and cellular longevity2021

Treatment of Radiation-Induced Brain Necrosis.

Xiaojing Yang, Hanru Ren, Jie Fu

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

3 authors.

Xiaojing YangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, No. 600, Yishan Road, Shanghai 200233, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4881-9771
Hanru RenDepartment of Orthopedics, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University, Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai 201300, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3558-0546
Jie FuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, No. 600, Yishan Road, Shanghai 200233, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3183-453X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiation-induced brain necrosis (RBN) is a serious complication of intracranial as well as skull base tumors after radiotherapy. In the past, due to the lack of effective treatment, radiation brain necrosis was considered to be progressive and irreversible. With better understanding in histopathology and neuroimaging, the occurrence and development of RBN have been gradually clarified, and new treatment methods are constantly emerging. In recent years, some scholars have tried to treat RBN with bevacizumab, nerve growth factor, and gangliosides and have achieved similar results. Some cases of brain necrosis can be repairable and reversible. We aimed to summarize the incidence, pathogenesis, and treatment of RBN.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsHumansNecrosisRadiation Injuries

Identifiers

PMID34976300
PMCPMC8720020

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.