ArticleSpinal cord2025
Comparative analysis of MRI features and surgical outcomes between intramedullary and extramedullary schwannomas in the spinal cord.
Article in Spinal cord, 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.
- Epidural cavernous hemangioma misdiagnosed as a schwannoma: A case report.The Journal of international medical research · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA retrospective comparative study.
objectivesTo clarify the distinctive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features and surgical outcomes of intramedullary schwannoma (IMS) compared to extramedullary schwannoma (EMS) in the spinal cord.
settingHospital in Tokyo, Japan.
methods19 cases each of IMS and EMS were matched by propensity score from a cohort of spinal cord tumor patients treated between 2008 and 2022. Preoperative MRI images were meticulously analyzed for general values and distinctive features at the tumor-spinal cord interface. Surgical outcomes were assessed based on neurological function, visual analogue scale (VAS), and recurrence rates.
resultsIMS and EMS exhibited similar MRI intensity patterns on T1- and T2-weighted images, but differed significantly in features surrounding the tumor, such as rough boarder (IMS: 78.9%, EMS: 5.3%, P value < 0.001) and peritumoral edema (IMS: 57.9%, EMS: 10.5%, P value = 0.005). Postoperatively, IMS cases showed substantial neurological improvement, with no recurrences following gross total resection (GTR). However, residual pain at the segmental level persisted more commonly in IMS compared to EMS (postoperative VAS, IMS: 45.0 ± 34.3, EMS: 19.7 ± 26.8, P value = 0.017).
conclusionsThe distinct MRI features identified, particularly the observation of the border with the spinal cord, offer valuable insights for differentiating IMS from EMS preoperatively. Although IMS results in improved neurological function with no recurrence following GTR, attention must be given to residual pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41087641What 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.