The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Association of the Extent of Resection With Survival in Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) remains almost invariably fatal despite optimal surgical and medical therapy. The association between the extent of tumor resection (EOR) and outcome remains undefined, notwithstanding many relevant studies. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether greater EOR is associated with improved 1- and 2-year overall survival and 6-month and 1-year progression-free survival in patients with GBM. DATA SOURCES: Pubmed, CINAHL, and Web of Science (January 1, 1966, to December 1, 2015) were systematically reviewed with librarian guidance. Additional articles were included after consultation with experts and evaluation of bibliographies. Articles were collected from January 15 to December 1, 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of adult patients with newly diagnosed supratentorial GBM comparing various EOR and presenting objective overall or progression-free survival data were included. Pediatric studies were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted from the text of articles or the Kaplan-Meier curves independently by investigators who were blinded to each other's results. Data were analyzed to assess mortality after gross total resection (GTR), subtotal resection (STR), and biopsy. The body of evidence was evaluated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria and PRISMA guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Relative risk (RR) for mortality at 1 and 2 years and progression at 6 months and 1 year. RESULTS: The search produced 37 studies suitable for inclusion (41 117 unique patients). The meta-analysis revealed decreased mortality for GTR compared with STR at 1 year (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69; P < .001; number needed to treat [NNT], 9) and 2 years (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.89; P < .001; NNT, 17). The 1-year risk for mortality for STR compared with biopsy was reduced significantly (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.91; P < .001). The risk for mortality was similarly decreased for any resection compared with biopsy at 1 year (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.84; P < .001; NNT, 21) and 2 years (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-1.00; P = .04; NNT, 593). The likelihood of disease progression was decreased with GTR compared with STR at 6 months (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.48-1.09; P = .12; NNT, 14) and 1 year (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43-0.99; P < .001; NNT, 26). The quality of the body of evidence by the GRADE criteria was moderate to low. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: This analysis represents the largest systematic review and only quantitative systematic review to date performed on this subject. Compared with STR, GTR substantially improves overall and progression-free survival, but the quality of the supporting evidence is moderate to low.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
Radiotherapy Plus Concomitant and Adjuvant Temozolomide for Glioblastoma
Stupp, R., Mason, W. P., van den Bent, M. J., Weller, M., Fisher, B., Taphoorn, M. J. B., Belanger, K., Brandes, A. A., Marosi, C., Bogdahn, U., et al. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa043330 · Cited by 21,807
Beneficial Effect of Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients with High-Grade Carotid Stenosis
(1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199108153250701 · Cited by 8,368
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence
Balshem, H., Helfand, M., Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., Meerpohl, J., & Norris, S. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015 · Cited by 8,285
(1996) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)09457-3 · Cited by 6,503
Fisher, B., Anderson, S., Bryant, J., Margolese, R. G., Deutsch, M., Fisher, E. R., Jeong, J.-H., & Wolmark, N. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa022152 · Cited by 6,249
Veronesi, U., Cascinelli, N., Mariani, L., Greco, M., Saccozzi, R., Luini, A., Aguilar, M., & Marubini, E. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa020989 · Cited by 4,450
Cited by
Wen, P. Y., Weller, M., Lee, E. Q., Alexander, B. M., Barnholtz-Sloan, J. S., Barthel, F. P., Batchelor, T. T., Bindra, R. S., Chang, S. M., Chiocca, E. A., et al. (2020) · Neuro-Oncology · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaa106 · Cited by 1,168
5-ALA and FDA Approval for Glioma Surgery
Hadjipanayis, C. G., & Stummer, W. (2019) · Journal of Neuro-Oncology · doi:10.1007/s11060-019-03098-y · Cited by 338
Glioblastoma Therapy: Past, Present and Future
Obrador, E., Moreno-Murciano, P., Oriol-Caballo, M., López-Blanch, R., Pineda, B., Gutiérrez-Arroyo, J., Loras, A., Gonzalez-Bonet, L., Martinez-Cadenas, C., Estrela, J., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms25052529 · Cited by 271
Schupper, A. J., Baron, R. B., Cheung, W., Rodriguez, J., Kalkanis, S. N., Chohan, M. O., Andersen, B. J., Chamoun, R., Nahed, B. V., Zacharia, B. E., et al. (2022) · Journal of Neurosurgery · doi:10.3171/2021.5.jns21310 · Cited by 59
Strickland, B. A., Wedemeyer, M., Ruzevick, J., Micko, A., Shahrestani, S., Daneshmand, S., Shiroishi, M. S., Hwang, D. H., Attenello, F., Chen, T., et al. (2022) · Journal of Neurosurgery · doi:10.3171/2022.1.jns212562 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, T. J., Brennan, M. C., Li, M., Church, E. W., Brandmeir, N. J., Rakszawski, K. L., Patel, A. S., Rizk, E. B., Suki, D., Sawaya, R., & Glantz, M.
- Venue
- JAMA Oncology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2016-11-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1460
- ISSN
- 2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2436534309
- Cited by
- 1,081
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 39.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Association of the Extent of Resection With Survival in Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1373
- The paper
- Brown, T. J., Brennan, M. C., Li, M., Church, E. W., Brandmeir, N. J., Rakszawski, K. L., Patel, A. S., Rizk, E. B., Suki, D., Sawaya, R., & Glantz, M. (2016). Association of the Extent of Resection With Survival in Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1373
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.