ArticleBrain & spine2023
Differences in intraoperative sampling during meningioma surgery regarding CNS invasion - Results of a survey on behalf of the EANS skull base section.
Article in Brain & spine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epileptogenesis in meningioma: Theories, putative biomarkers, and postoperative risk.Epilepsia · 2025Review
- A systematic review of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging radiomics in the prediction of brain invasion in meningioma.Translational cancer research · 2025Review
- cIMPACT-NOW update 8: Clarifications on molecular risk parameters and recommendations for WHO grading of meningiomas.Neuro-oncology · 2025Review
- Grading meningioma resections: the Simpson classification and beyond.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: and Research Question: Invasive growth of meningiomas into CNS tissue is rare but of prognostic significance. While it has entered the WHO classification as a stand-alone criterion for atypia, its true prognostic impact remains controversial. Retrospective analyses, on which the current evidence is based, show conflicting results. Discordant findings might be explained by different intraoperative sampling methodologies. Material and methods: To assess the applied sampling methods in the light of the novel prognostic impact of CNS invasion, an anonymous survey was designed and distributed via the EANS website and newsletter. The survey was open from June 5th until July 15th, 2022. Results: After exclusion of 13 incomplete responses, 142 (91.6%) datasets were used for statistical analysis. Only 47.2% of participants' institutions utilize a standardized sampling method, and 54.9% pursue a complete sampling of the area of contact between the meningioma surface and CNS tissue. Most respondents (77.5%) did not change their sampling practice after introduction of the new grading criteria to the WHO classification of 2016. Intraoperative suspicion of CNS invasion changes the sampling for half of the participants (49.3%). Additional sampling of suspicious areas of interest is reported in 53.5%. Dural attachment and adjacent bone are more readily sampled separately if tumor invasion is suspected (72.5% and 74.6%, respectively), compared to meningioma tissue with signs of CNS invasion (59.9%). Discussion and conclusions: Intraoperative sampling methods during meningioma resection vary among neurosurgical departments. There is need for a structured sampling to optimize the diagnostic yield of CNS invasion.
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.