ReviewCancers2023
Clinical Decision Support Systems for Brain Tumour Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-precision brain tumor segmentation with switchable normalization in faster R-CNN architecture.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Correlation of contrast-enhancing tumor region on pre-radiotherapy MRI with overall survival in glioblastoma.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- NMR-Based Metabolomic Profiling for Brain Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Guidance.Metabolites · 2025Review
- The Neural Frontier of Future Medical Imaging: A Review of Deep Learning for Brain Tumor Detection.Journal of imaging · 2024Review
- Advances in the Use of Deep Learning for the Analysis of Magnetic Resonance Image in Neuro-Oncology.Cancers · 2024Review
- A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems in Prostate Cancer Management.Healthcare technology lettersReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
CDSSs are being continuously developed and integrated into routine clinical practice as they assist clinicians and radiologists in dealing with an enormous amount of medical data, reduce clinical errors, and improve diagnostic capabilities. They assist detection, classification, and grading of brain tumours as well as alert physicians of treatment change plans. The aim of this systematic review is to identify various CDSSs that are used in brain tumour diagnosis and prognosis and rely on data captured by any imaging modality. Based on the 2020 preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol, the literature search was conducted in PubMed and Engineering Village Compendex databases. Different types of CDSSs identified through this review include Curiam BT, FASMA, MIROR, HealthAgents, and INTERPRET, among others. This review also examines various CDSS tool types, system features, techniques, accuracy, and outcomes, to provide the latest evidence available in the field of neuro-oncology. An overview of such CDSSs used to support clinical decision-making in the management and treatment of brain tumours, along with their benefits, challenges, and future perspectives has been provided. Although a CDSS improves diagnostic capabilities and healthcare delivery, there is lack of specific evidence to support these claims. The absence of empirical data slows down both user acceptance and evaluation of the actual impact of CDSS on brain tumour management. Instead of emphasizing the advantages of implementing CDSS, it is important to address its potential drawbacks and ethical implications. By doing so, it can promote the responsible use of CDSS and facilitate its faster adoption in clinical settings.
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.