Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39554784›Full record

ReviewNeuro-oncology practice2024

Interventional neurorehabilitation for glioma patients: A systematic review.

Justyna O Ekert, Anshit Goyal, Jacob S Young, Shawn L Hervey-Jumper, Mitchel S Berger

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuro-oncology practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Rehabilitation in patients with primary brain tumors: a scoping review of current guideline recommendations.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. DecodingJournal of clinical medicine · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Justyna O EkertDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4202-5746
Anshit GoyalDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
Jacob S YoungDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Shawn L Hervey-JumperDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Mitchel S BergerDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1983-4892

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Harnessing the neuroplastic potential of the human brain is being increasingly recognized as an important neuro-oncological paradigm to facilitate safe resection of brain tumors while preserving neurological function and quality of life. Interventional neurorehabilitation, employing both invasive and noninvasive neuromodulation techniques, represents an important emerging therapeutic strategy to induce or enhance neural plasticity to promote functional recovery in brain tumor patients. This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive review of interventional neurorehabilitation techniques for glioma patients. Methods: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, searches of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, and Cochrane were undertaken from database inception to November 28, 2023. Studies reporting on neuromodulation applied to glioma patients were included. Results: Seven studies reporting findings from 118 patients met the inclusion criteria. Three neuromodulation techniques were identified and included transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) reported in 5 out of 7 (71.4%) studies; transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS); and continuous cortical electrical stimulation (cCES) using grid electrodes, reported in one study each. All studies applying noninvasive stimulation to ameliorate postoperative deficits demonstrated an improvement on at least one outcome measure. The 2 studies applying tDCS and cCES to induce plasticity reported evidence of functional reorganization. Conclusions: There is emerging evidence of benefits of neuromodulation to improve postoperative outcome in glioma patients. In the current literature, noninvasive stimulation has shown to have a favorable safety profile. Large-scale, double-blind, sham-controlled trials are warranted to further investigate the effectiveness of these interventions for modulating different cognitive networks in patients undergoing glioma surgery.

Indexed as

cognitiongliomamotorrehabilitationtranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)

Identifiers

PMID39554784
PMCPMC11567740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.