SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Awake versus asleep craniotomy for eloquent glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurological outcomes and survival in patients with intracranial lesions undergoing awake craniotomy: a descriptive retrospective single-center study.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 2026Article
- Awake Glioma Surgery with Intraoperative Mapping: Predictors of Language Outcome and Survival.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Awake Craniotomy Versus General Anesthesia for Resection of High-Grade Gliomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Intraoperative electrocorticography-guided glioma surgery: impact on extent of resection and functional preservation.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of awake craniotomy versus general anesthesia for glioma resection: A systematic review.Surgical neurology international · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Awake craniotomy (AC) can aid in preserving neurological function through intraoperative mapping of sensorimotor and language functions. It has been associated with increased extent of resection (EOR) and reduced neurological deficits in glioma patients. Most studies focused on low grade tumours and there remains limited evidence assessing utility of AC for glioblastoma (GB). This systematic review evaluates current evidence for safety and efficacy of GB resection under AC versus general anaesthetic (GA) conditions. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of original studies assessing comparative outcomes of supratentorial GB resection via AC versus GA. Studies included patients > 18 years of age, with histopathological diagnosis of Grade 4 GB affecting an eloquent location. Medline, Embase and Pubmed were searched from inception to the 30th of June 2025. The outcomes assessed included: EOR, rates of temporary and permanent post-operative neurological deficits, survival, and functional outcomes. Eleven studies were included, with 1355 patients (402 AC and 953 GA resections). AC achieved greater percentage EOR (MD = 7.55 [CI 2.94-12.15], p = 0.001), and non-significant increase in rates of gross total resection (OR = 1.66 [CI 0.64-4.35], p = 0.30). The risk of developing a post-operative neurological deficit was significantly lower with AC (OR = 0.55 [CI:0.36-0.85], p = 0.008). Overall survival (HR = 7.99 [CI 2.29-13.69], p = 0.007) was significantly increased with AC but there was no significant difference in progression-free survival (HR = 2.03 [CI -1.32-5.37], p = 0.23). AC for eloquently located GB is associated with improved EOR, survival and lower risk of neurological complications. When feasible, AC should be considered for eloquent GB resection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40887547What 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.