Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35478118›Full record

ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)

Placido Bruzzaniti, Pierfrancesco Lapolla, Alessia D'Amico, Giuseppa Zancana, Michael Katsev, Michela Relucenti, Giuseppe Familiari, Andrea Mingoli, Giancarlo D'Andrea, Alessandro Frati and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Placido Bruzzaniti *Department of Human Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, Policlinico Umberto I University Hospital, Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Pierfrancesco Lapolla *Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.
Alessia D'AmicoDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppa ZancanaDepartment of Human Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, Policlinico Umberto I University Hospital, Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Michael KatsevDepartment of Human Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, Policlinico Umberto I University Hospital, Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Michela RelucentiDepartment of Anatomy, Histology, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe FamiliariDepartment of Anatomy, Histology, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Andrea MingoliDepartment of Surgery "Pietro Valdoni", "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Giancarlo D'AndreaNeurosurgery Division of "Spaziani" Hospital, Frosinone, Italy.
Alessandro FratiDepartment of Human Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, Policlinico Umberto I University Hospital, Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Maurizio SalvatiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Policlinico "Tor Vergata", University of Rome ''Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Antonio Santoro *Department of Human Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, Policlinico Umberto I University Hospital, Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Pietro Familiari *Department of Human Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, Policlinico Umberto I University Hospital, Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Sapienza University of Rome · ITPoliclinico Umberto I · ITAccademia di Belle Arti di Frosinone · ITIRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano · ITIstituto Neurologico Mediterraneo · ITPoliclinico Tor Vergata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimThe treatment of solitary brain metastasis is a challenging intervention since the incidence increases and prognosis is poor. This study investigated the role of perilesional edema in the overall mass effect of solitary brain metastasis. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis on 88 patients with single supratentorial brain metastasis and concomitant perilesional edema undergoing en bloc resection. Each patient was evaluated for perilesional brain edema grading. We stratified patients into three groups based on the size of the metastatic lesion and the extent of perilesional edema.

resultsThe grade of perilesional edema at 30 days after surgical removal did not correlate with the maximum diameter of the metastasis (Pearson's correlation 0.098, p=0.494). In patients with a maximal metastatic diameter ≤2 cm, the grade of perilesional edema before surgical treatment was 1.63 (STD 0.43), while 30 days after removal it was significantly reduced; 0.47 (STD 0.26), p<0.001.

conclusionThe overall mass effect of solitary supratentorial brain metastases is not correlated to the size of the lesion and the grade of the associated perilesional edema should be considered. Surgical en bloc resection can be considered the first choice of treatment in the presence of solitary metastasis ≤2 cm in maximal diameter but with high-grade edema, since this treatment reduces the overall mass effect.

Indexed as

Brain EdemaBrain NeoplasmsEdemaHumansRetrospective StudiesBrain metastasisen bloc resectionoverall mass effectperilesional edemasize of lesion

Identifiers

PMID35478118
PMCPMC9087063
OpenAlexW4225109365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.