Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39839770›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2024

Preoperative mapping techniques for brain tumor surgery: a systematic review.

Augusto Leone, Francesco Carbone, Uwe Spetzger, Peter Vajkoczy, Giovanni Raffa, Flavio Angileri, Antonino Germanó, Melina Engelhardt, Thomas Picht, Antonio Colamaria and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. StructuralBrain & spine · 2025
    Article
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

11 authors.

Augusto LeoneDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Francesco CarboneDepartment of Neurosurgery, Städtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Uwe SpetzgerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Städtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Peter VajkoczyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Giovanni RaffaDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Flavio AngileriDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Antonino GermanóDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Melina EngelhardtDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Thomas PichtDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Antonio ColamariaDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Tizian RosenstockDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate preoperative mapping is crucial for maximizing tumor removal while minimizing damage to critical brain functions during brain tumor surgery. Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS), magnetoencephalography (MEG), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) are established methods for assessing motor and language function. Following PRISMA guidelines, this systematic review analyzes the reliability, clinical utility, and accessibility of these techniques. A total of 128 studies (48 nTMS, 56 fMRI, 24 MEG) were identified from various databases. The analysis finds nTMS to be a safe, standardized method with high accuracy compared to direct cortical stimulation for preoperative motor mapping. Combining nTMS with tractography allows for preoperative assessment of short-term and long-term motor deficits, which may not be possible with fMRI. fMRI data interpretation requires careful consideration of co-activated, non-essential areas (potentially leading to false positives) and situations where neural activity and blood flow are uncoupled (potentially leading to false negatives). These limitations restrict fMRI's role in preoperative planning for both motor and language functions. While MEG offers high accuracy in motor mapping, its high cost and technical complexity contribute to the limited number of available studies. Studies comparing preoperative language mapping techniques with direct cortical stimulation show significant variability across all methods, highlighting the need for larger, multicenter studies for validation. Repetitive nTMS speech mapping offers valuable negative predictive value, allowing clinicians to evaluate whether a patient should undergo awake or asleep surgery. Language function monitoring heavily relies on the specific expertise and experience available at each center, making it challenging to establish general recommendations.

Indexed as

brain mappingbrain tumor surgeryfMRIlanguage eloquent tumormagnetoencephalography (MEG)motor eloquent tumorsnavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS)preoperative mapping

Identifiers

PMID39839770
PMCPMC11747149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.