ReviewFrontiers in oncology2024
Preoperative mapping techniques for brain tumor surgery: a systematic review.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Motor Mapping and nTMS-Guided Corticospinal Tractography in Healthy Individuals and Patients with Motor-Eloquent Brain Tumors.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Subcortical and Cerebellar Compensation for Motor Control in Medial Frontal Glioblastoma: A Task-Based Connectivity Study.Brain topography · 2026Article
- Article
- Extent of Resection and Survival in IDH-Wildtype Glioblastoma: A Dual-Center Retrospective Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Mills-Nithi algorithm for navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping in healthy subjects and brain tumor patients.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Article
- Multimodal Imaging in Epilepsy Surgery for Personalized Neurosurgical Planning.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- The Weight of Eloquence in Motor Area Glioblastoma: Oncologic Outcome After nTMS-Guided Surgical Resection.NeuroSci · 2025Article
- Intraoperative integration of nTMS, CCEPs and DCS for language. A glance to the next future?Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Real-Time Object Detector for Medical Diagnostics (RTMDet): A High-Performance Deep Learning Model for Brain Tumor Diagnosis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Virtual Biopsy for the Prediction of MGMT Promoter Methylation in Gliomas: A Comprehensive Review of Radiomics and Deep Learning Approaches Applied to MRI.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- StructuralBrain & spine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.