ArticleScientific reports2025
Identification of key elements in MRI reporting of intracranial meningiomas based on a nationwide survey of clinical experts in Germany.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While MRI has become the imaging modality of choice for intracranial meningiomas, no radiologic reporting guidance exists to date that relies on a systematic collection of information relevant to the core medical disciplines involved in the management of these patients. To address this issue, a nationwide expert survey was conducted in Germany. A literature-based catalog of potential reporting elements for MRI examinations of meningioma patients was developed interdisciplinarily. Subsequently, all board-certified members of the German Societies of Neuroradiology, Neurosurgery and Radiation Oncology with expertise in managing meningioma patients were invited to vote on the relevance of the suggested items via online survey. A total of 150 experts participated in the study (104 neurosurgeons/radiation oncologists, 46 neuroradiologists). The reporting elements of tumor location, extent, growth pattern, contrast uptake, associated cysts, and impact on adjacent anatomic structures received widespread approval (> 75.0% of all participants). In addition, a vast majority (> 75.0%) supported reference to perifocal edema, signs of mass effect, and hydrocephalus. Postoperative imaging is particularly requested to describe the extent of resection (94.0%) and treatment-related changes (89.3%). Advanced methods (diffusion, perfusion, proton spectroscopy) and meningioma-specific classifications (Nauta, Zee, Sindou) were judged to be less relevant (< 50.0% agreement) to MRI reporting. To serve as a vital clinical communication tool and enable an optimal contribution to the care of meningioma patients, the radiological report should focus on the fundamental information requirements of the neuro-oncology treatment team encompassing primarily tumor location, extent, tissue imaging characteristics, and potential impairment of neighboring anatomical structures.
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.