SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Impact of awake mapping on extent of resection and neurological outcomes of Low-grade gliomas: 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 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.
- Awake Glioma Surgery with Intraoperative Mapping: Predictors of Language Outcome and Survival.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Awake surgery with intraoperative mapping (AwS) of the eloquent brain by electrical stimulation has become an integral part of glioma surgery. However, the impact of AwS on the extent of resection (EOR) of low-grade gliomas (LGGs) is controversial. This systematic review aims to investigate the effect of AwS on resection and neurological outcomes in patients with LGGs. We performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. All studies that compared AwS with surgery under general anesthesia (GA) in adult patients with LGGs were included. The ROBINS-I ("Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomised Studies of Interventions") was used for assessing the quality of the studies. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to calculate the effect size for binary outcomes and continuous variables, respectively. Ten studies have been included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. They included 735 patients, with 401 in the AwS group and 334 in the GA group. We did not find a significant difference in tumor volume on the preoperative MRI (SMD: -0.14; 95% CI: -0.31 to 0.03; p=0.11). The mean volumetric EOR did not differ between the two groups (SMD: 0.79; 95% CI: -0.24 to 1.81; p=0.13). The early motor (RR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.16 - 1.51; p=0.23) and overall neurological outcomes (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.23 - 1.93; p=0.46) were comparable between AwS and GA groups. The late neurological outcome, including motor and language deficits, was significantly better with AwS (RR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.13 - 0.54; p=0.0002). Our meta-analysis suggests that overall EOR is comparable between AwS and asleep surgery for LGGs. Although there is no significant difference in early neurological outcome, patients undergoing awake surgery for LGGs have better overall neurological outcomes in the long term.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41398134What 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.