ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2025
Evaluation of Vestibular Schwannoma Size across Time: How Well Do the Experts Perform and What Can Be Improved?
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purpose2D linear measurements are often used in routine clinical practice during vestibular schwannoma (VS) follow-up, primarily due to wider availability and ease of use. We sought to determine the radiologist's performance compared with 3D-volumetry, along with the impact of the number of linear measurements, slice thickness, and tumor volumes on these parameters. MATERIALS AND
methodsSpecificity and accuracy estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the entire cohort and subgroups on the basis of volumes (<400, 400-800, >800 mm
resultsThere was weak agreement between the radiologist's inference and VS volumetry (0.45; 95% CI. 0.41-00.53). Agreement was lower when 0-1 tumor dimension was measured (0.29; 95% CI, 0.21-0.42), for smaller tumors of <400 mm
conclusionsIn routine practice, radiologists show poor agreement with volumetric results and sensitivity to detect interval change and overall poor accuracy for volumetric changes of ≤ ± 25% in volume. In the absence of volumetric measurements, radiologists need to be more diligent when evaluating interval changes in VS.
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.