The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impact of Intraoperative Stimulation Brain Mapping on Glioma Surgery Outcome: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Purpose: Surgery for infiltrative gliomas aims to balance tumor removal with preservation of functional integrity. The usefulness of intraoperative stimulation mapping (ISM) has not been addressed in randomized trials. This study addresses glioma surgery outcome on the basis of a meta-analysis of observational studies. Methods: A systematic search retrieved 90 reports published between 1990 and 2010 with 8,091 adult patients who had resective surgery for supratentorial infiltrative glioma, with or without ISM. Quality criteria consisted of postoperative neurologic examination details and follow-up timing. New postoperative neurologic deficits were categorized on the basis of timing and severity. Meta-analysis with a Bayesian random effects model determined summary event rates of deficits as well as gross total resection rate and eloquent locations. Meta-regression analysis explored heterogeneity among studies. Results: Late severe neurologic deficits were observed in 3.4% (95% CI, 2.3% to 4.8%) of patients after resections with ISM, and in 8.2% (95% CI, 5.7% to 11.4%) of patients after resections without ISM (adjusted odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.64). The percentages of radiologically confirmed gross total resections were 75% (95% CI, 66% to 82%) with ISM and 58% (95% CI, 48% to 69%) without ISM. Eloquent locations were involved in 99.9% (95% CI, 99.9% to 100%) of resections with ISM and in 95.8% (95% CI, 73.1% to 99.8%) of resections without ISM. Relevant sources of heterogeneity among studies were ISM, continent, and academic setting. Conclusion: Glioma resections using ISM are associated with fewer late severe neurologic deficits and more extensive resection, and they involve eloquent locations more frequently. This indicates that ISM should be universally implemented as standard of care for glioma surgery.
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
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences
Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. (1992) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1177011136 · Cited by 16,627
The 2007 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Central Nervous System
Louis, D. N., Ohgaki, H., Wiestler, O. D., Cavenee, W. K., Burger, P. C., Jouvet, A., Scheithauer, B. W., & Kleihues, P. (2007) · Acta Neuropathologica · doi:10.1007/s00401-007-0243-4 · Cited by 15,397
Wen, P. Y., & Kesari, S. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra0708126 · Cited by 3,511
Stummer, W., Pichlmeier, U., Meinel, T., Wiestler, O. D., Zanella, F., & Reulen, H.-J. (2006) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(06)70665-9 · Cited by 3,423
How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1187 · Cited by 3,026
A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2009) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2008.00552.x · Cited by 2,569
Cited by
EANO guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diffuse gliomas of adulthood
Weller, M., van den Bent, M., Preusser, M., Le Rhun, E., Tonn, J. C., Minniti, G., Bendszus, M., Balana, C., Chinot, O., Dirven, L., et al. (2021) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41571-020-00447-z · Cited by 2,048
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
Awake craniotomy to maximize glioma resection: methods and technical nuances over a 27-year period
Hervey-Jumper, S. L., Li, J., Lau, D., Molinaro, A. M., Perry, D. W., Meng, L., & Berger, M. S. (2015) · Journal of Neurosurgery · doi:10.3171/2014.10.jns141520 · Cited by 451
Self-citationStimulation mapping of white matter tracts to study brain functional connectivity.
Duffau, H. (2015) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2015.51 · Cited by 437
Self-citationDuffau, H. (2014) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2013.08.005 · Cited by 331
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- De Witt Hamer, P. C., Robles, S. G., Zwinderman, A. H., Duffau, H., & Berger, M. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2012-07-10
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 2559-2565
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W1997733307
- Cited by
- 1,044
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 5.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Impact of Intraoperative Stimulation Brain Mapping on Glioma Surgery Outcome: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2011.38.4818
- The paper
- De Witt Hamer, P. C., Robles, S. G., Zwinderman, A. H., Duffau, H., & Berger, M. S. (2012). Impact of Intraoperative Stimulation Brain Mapping on Glioma Surgery Outcome: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.38.4818
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.