ArticleBMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies2024
Theory and evidence-base for a digital platform for the delivery of language tests during awake craniotomy and collaborative brain mapping.
Article in BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unlocking the mind: brain mapping for the exploratory quest of functional and cognitive networks in awake neurosurgery.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review of Native Languages Mapped With Direct Electrical Stimulation During Awake Craniotomy.Cureus · 2026Review
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Build the theoretical and evidence-base for a digital platform (map-OR) which delivers intraoperative language tests during awake craniotomy and facilitates collaborative sharing of brain mapping data. Design: Mixed methodology study including two scoping reviews, international survey, synthesis of development guiding principles and a risk assessment using failure modes and effects analysis. Setting: The two scoping reviews examined the literature published in the English language. International survey was completed by members of awake craniotomy teams from 14 countries. Main outcome measures: Scoping review 1: number of technologies described for language mapping during awake craniotomy. Scoping review 2: barriers and facilitators to adopting novel technology in surgery. International survey: degree of language mapping technology penetration into clinical practice. Results: A total of 12 research articles describing 6 technologies were included. The technologies required a range of hardware components including portable devices, virtual reality headsets and large integrated multiscreen stacks. The facilitators and barriers of technology adoption in surgery were extracted from 11 studies and mapped onto the 4 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology constructs. A total of 37 awake craniotomy teams from 14 countries completed the survey. Of the responses, 20 (54.1%) delivered their language tests digitally, 10 (27.0%) delivered tests using cards and 7 (18.9%) used a combination of both. The most commonly used devices were tablet computers (67.7%; n=21) and the most common software used was Microsoft PowerPoint (60.6%; n=20). Four key risks for the proposed digital platform were identified, the highest risk being a software and internet connectivity failure during surgery. Conclusions: This work represents a rigorous and structured approach to the development of a digital platform for standardized intraoperative language testing during awake craniotomy and for collaborative sharing of brain mapping data. Trial registration number: Scoping review protocol registrations in OSF registries (scoping review 1: osf.io/su9xm; scoping review 2: osf.io/x4wsc).
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.