ReviewCancers2024
The Role of Simpson Grading System in Spinal Meningioma Surgery: Institutional Case Series, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating the role of gross total resection in primary spinal cord glioblastoma: evidence from a multicenter cohort and meta-analysis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Modified Hemilaminectomy for Bilateral Exposure in Intramedullary Spinal Cord Tumor Resection.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Recurrent pediatric cervical World Health Organization grade II meningioma with foraminal extension and vertebral artery displacement: A case report and literature review.Surgical neurology international · 2026Article
- Article
- Ultrasonography diagnosis of dumbbell-shaped C5 cervical schwannoma: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough its validity has recently been questioned since its introduction, the Simpson grade has remained one of the most relevant factors in estimating the recurrence risk of intracranial meningiomas. This study aims to assess its role in spinal meningiomas through a retrospective analysis of a mono-institutional surgical series and literature meta-analysis.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature from 1980 to 2023, complemented by a mono-institutional series of 74 patients treated at "Santa Maria delle Grazie" hospital. Demographic, clinical, neuroradiological, pathological, surgical, and outcome data of case series were analyzed. For the meta-analysis, studies were selected based on predefined inclusion criteria, and a fixed-effects model was used to synthesize data due to assumed homogeneity among included studies. Statistical analyses included odds ratios (OR) for recurrence risk and assessment of publication bias using Peter's test.
resultsMono-institutional sample included 74 patients, most of whom were women (85%) with a median age of 61.9 years. The thoracic spine was the most common tumor location (81%). Recurrences occurred in patients with Simpson grade II and III resections. The meta-analysis involved 2142 patients from 25 studies and revealed a significantly higher recurrence rate for Simpson grades III-V compared to grades I-II (OR 0.10; CI95 0.06-0.16). Additionally, Simpson grade II had a higher recurrence risk than grade I (OR 0.42; CI95 0.20-0.90).
conclusionsThe Simpson grading remains a valid predictor of recurrence also for spinal meningiomas. Our findings revealed a significant increase in recurrence rate with higher Simpson grades. These results support the need to strive for Simpson grade I resection when feasible.
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.