ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2025
Language testing in awake craniotomy for brain tumor resection: A survey of current perioperative practice in the United Kingdom.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background: Language testing and mapping procedures are considered the gold standard for safe tumor resection and preservation of language and communication in patients with tumors located in an area eloquent for language, especially in the presence of low-grade gliomas. However, the current status of language testing in awake craniotomy in the United Kingdom is unknown. The main aim of this study was to describe the language testing practices in awake brain surgery across the United Kingdom. Methods: An online survey was addressed to medical practitioners working with brain tumor patients during the phases of language testing. Questions inquired about the tests and approaches for language testing before, during, and after the surgery. The survey also explored the management of bilingual (for the sake of simplicity, the term bilingual is used throughout the article to refer to patients who speak 2 or more languages) brain tumor patients and gathered personal perspectives from clinicians. Results: Responses were obtained from 37 clinicians. Speech and language therapists and neuropsychologists administered language tests to patients, and those with sufficient language skills for completing intraoperative tests were eligible for awake mapping. A combination of standardized language batteries and homemade tasks were used for language testing, leading to variability in testing practices across institutions. For language mapping, the most popular tasks were picture naming, sentence completion, and repetition. Object and action naming were used across both the monolingual and bilingual patient groups. The timing of postoperative assessments varied according to patient needs and clinician availability. Bilingual patients were evaluated with interpreters and limited materials, compared to monolinguals. Conclusions: The provision of awake craniotomy language testing presents differences across UK-based institutions. Responders advocate for more comprehensive, updated, and inclusive materials to facilitate language testing in modern patient cohorts spanning a wide range of linguistic skills and foreign languages.
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.