ReviewSurgical neurology international2026
Efficacy and safety of awake craniotomy versus general anesthesia for glioma resection: A systematic review.
Review in Surgical neurology international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Gliomas frequently arise in eloquent cortical regions, where achieving maximal resection while preserving neurological function poses a major challenge. Awake craniotomy (AC) with intraoperative mapping is increasingly employed for this purpose, but its comparative effectiveness against general anesthesia (GA) remains unclear. Methods: This systematic review conducted under Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered in PROSPERO, searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus for English-language studies published from 2015 to 2025. Eligible studies compared AC and GA in adults with supratentorial gliomas and reported outcomes on extent of resection, neurological preservation, survival, safety, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness. Data extraction was performed independently by three reviewers, and study quality was assessed with Risk of Bias 2, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, or AMSTAR 2. Due to heterogeneity, findings were synthesized narratively. Results: Six studies were included (4 primary, 2 reviews); only two directly compared approaches. Extent of resection ( Conclusion: Neither approach demonstrated superiority. AC enables functional monitoring but offers no survival benefit and increases costs. Surgical decisions should be individualized. High-quality randomized trials are needed.
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.