ReviewCancers2025
The Diagnostic Yield of Cerebrospinal Fluid Analysis for the Diagnosis of Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Primary central nervous system lymphoma-current standards and recent developments.Neuro-oncology practice · 2026Review
- Article
- Primary central nervous system lymphoma of the third ventricle: Diagnostic pitfalls, the "Ghost Tumor" phenomenon, and steroid-induced complications.Surgical neurology international · 2026Article
- Case Report: Cerebrospinal fluid cytology as a diagnostic clue in hemorrhagic glioblastoma mimicking hypertensive intracranial hemorrhage.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe gold standard for diagnosing primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is brain biopsy, an invasive procedure with significant risks. The role of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) examination, limited to cytology and flow cytometry in current practice, is acknowledged as a less invasive diagnostic method. We aimed to summarize available data concerning the efficacy and actual use of current standard CSF diagnostics in the diagnosis of PCNSL.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of 144 studies (n = 9493 patients) was conducted, assessing detection rates of cytology and flow cytometry and the proportion of diagnoses based on CSF analysis. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to evaluate study quality and bias.
resultsMeta-analysis showed an 18% pooled detection rate for positive CSF results, with 17% for cytology and 20% for flow cytometry. Only 8% of diagnoses were made using CSF analysis. Most studies had a high risk of bias.
conclusionsDespite its established role in guidelines, CSF analysis remains underutilized for diagnosing PCNSL, with room to improve its clinical impact. Novel techniques, such as chemokines and circulating tumor DNA (cfDNA) analysis, hold promise to unlock the untapped potential of CSF diagnostics, offering significant advancements in non-invasive PCNSL diagnosis.
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.