ArticleRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2022
[MRI reporting of gliomas : What neuro-oncology clinicians expect from radiologists].
Article in Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveStructured reporting of MRI examinations using consensus-based content categories has the potential to improve interdisciplinary communication in neuro-oncology. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the essential reporting categories in the imaging of gliomas from a clinical perspective within the setting of a nationwide survey of members of medical societies working in neuro-oncology. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn online questionnaire was created based on an interdisciplinary developed catalog of possible MRI reporting elements. Subsequently, specialist members of the German Societies of Neurosurgery, Radiation Oncology, Hematology and Medical Oncology, Neurology, and Neuropathology were invited to evaluate the items with regard to their clinical relevance.
resultsA total of 171 specialists from Germany participated in the survey (81 neurosurgeons, 66 radiation therapists, and 24 other neuro-oncology experts). Number and anatomic extent of tumors in the contrast-enhanced T1 and 2D T2 sequences (98.8% vs. 97.1%) as well as newly diagnosed lesions at follow-up (T1 + contrast 98.2%; T2 94.7%) were overall most frequently considered crucial. In addition, the experts particularly rated the description of ependymal and/or leptomeningeal tumor dissemination (93.6%) and signs of mass effect including occlusive hydrocephalus and parenchymal mass shifts (> 75.0% each) as essential. Standard mention of intratumoral calcifications, hemorrhages, tumor vascular architecture, or advanced imaging modalities such as MR perfusion, diffusion, tractography, and proton spectroscopy were considered fundamental to their everyday practice by only a minority of neuro-oncology colleagues.
conclusionA referring physician-oriented minimum content standard for MRI examinations in primary brain tumor patients should include as clinically relevant core elements the exact anatomic spread of the lesion(s), including ependymal and meningeal involvement, and the pertinent signs of mass effect.
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.