Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37046834›Full record

ReviewCancers2023

Technical Aspects of Motor and Language Mapping in Glioma Patients.

Nadeem N Al-Adli, Jacob S Young, Youssef E Sibih, Mitchel S Berger

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07789938 (Intraoperative Monitoring of Motor, Visual and Cortico-cortical Evoked Potentials in Brain Tumor Surgery Under General Anesthesia), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT07789938 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2027, after this paper: background citation

Intraoperative Monitoring of Motor, Visual and Cortico-cortical Evoked Potentials in Brain Tumor Surgery Under General Anesthesia: Prospective Cohort Studies

TypeinterventionalSponsorOdense University HospitalRan2027 to 2029Enrolled166ConditionsIntraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring, Malignant Brain Tumors, Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring, Cortico-cortical Evoked Potential MonitoringArmsIntraoperative neurophysiological monitoring, no Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Glioblastoma Therapy: Past, Present and Future.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nadeem N Al-AdliDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94131, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7803-8103
Jacob S YoungDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94131, USA.
Youssef E SibihSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94131, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0839-5428
Mitchel S BergerDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94131, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · USTexas Christian University · US

Funding

Training Program in Translational Brain Tumor ResearchT32CA151022 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Joseph F Costello · 2010 to 2026
$6.6M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA151022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gliomas are infiltrative primary brain tumors that often invade functional cortical and subcortical regions, and they mandate individualized brain mapping strategies to avoid postoperative neurological deficits. It is well known that maximal safe resection significantly improves survival, while postoperative deficits minimize the benefits associated with aggressive resections and diminish patients' quality of life. Although non-invasive imaging tools serve as useful adjuncts, intraoperative stimulation mapping (ISM) is the gold standard for identifying functional cortical and subcortical regions and minimizing morbidity during these challenging resections. Current mapping methods rely on the use of low-frequency and high-frequency stimulation, delivered with monopolar or bipolar probes either directly to the cortical surface or to the subcortical white matter structures. Stimulation effects can be monitored through patient responses during awake mapping procedures and/or with motor-evoked and somatosensory-evoked potentials in patients who are asleep. Depending on the patient's preoperative status and tumor location and size, neurosurgeons may choose to employ these mapping methods during awake or asleep craniotomies, both of which have their own benefits and challenges. Regardless of which method is used, the goal of intraoperative stimulation is to identify areas of non-functional tissue that can be safely removed to facilitate an approach trajectory to the equator, or center, of the tumor. Recent technological advances have improved ISM's utility in identifying subcortical structures and minimized the seizure risk associated with cortical stimulation. In this review, we summarize the salient technical aspects of which neurosurgeons should be aware in order to implement intraoperative stimulation mapping effectively and safely during glioma surgery.

Indexed as

awake craniotomyfunctional brain mappinggliomaintraoperative stimulation mappinglanguage mappingmaximal safe resectionmotor mappingstimulation techniques

Identifiers

PMID37046834
PMCPMC10093517
OpenAlexW4362669258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.