ReviewSurgical neurology international2026
Continuous dynamic subcortical mapping of corticospinal tract: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Surgical neurology international, 2026. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess neurological outcomes at different thresholds and identify a cutoff associated with safer resections. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses guidelines, we included case series reporting the use of continuous dynamic mapping during tumor resection near the corticospinal tract. Outcomes included temporary and permanent post-operative motor deficits. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated; heterogeneity was assessed using the I Results: Seven studies involving 301 patients were included in this study. Patients with thresholds of 1-5 mA had a significantly higher risk of temporary motor deficits compared to those with thresholds >5 mA (43% vs. 11%; RR 3.14, 95% CI: 1.96-5.03; Conclusion: Extending resection beyond the minimal stimulation threshold of 5mA increases the risk of transient neurological deficits. Going beyond ≤3 mA will additionally increase the risk of permanent motor deficits. These exponential risks should be carefully counterweighted with the potential oncological benefit of higher EOR in each patient. These findings emphasize the need for prospective multicenter studies with standardized stimulation parameters to establish evidence-based guidelines for safe resection near eloquent motor pathways.
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.