↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Biopsy versus resection for the management of low-grade gliomas

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
Title
Biopsy versus resection for the management of low-grade gliomas
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009319.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bowen Jiang, Kaisorn Chaichana, Anand Veeravagu, Steven D Chang, Keith L Black, Chirag G Patil

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2013, Issue 4.Low-grade gliomas (LGG) constitute a class of slow-growing primary brain neoplasms. Patients with clinically and radiographically suspected LGG have two initial surgical options, biopsy or resection. Biopsy can provide a histological diagnosis with minimal risk but does not offer a direct treatment. Resection may have additional benefits such as increasing survival and delaying recurrence, but is associated with a higher risk for surgical morbidity. There remains controversy about the role of biopsy versus resection and the relative clinical outcomes for the management of LGG. To assess the clinical effectiveness of biopsy compared to surgical resection in patients with a new lesion suspected to be a LGG. The following electronic databases were searched in 2012 for the first version of the review: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1950 to November week 3 2012), Embase (1980 to Week 46 2012). For this updated version, the following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE (Nov 2012 to June week 3 2016), Embase (Nov 2012 to 2016 week 26). All relevant articles were identified on PubMed and by using the 'related articles' feature. We also searched unpublished and grey literature including ISRCTN-metaRegister of Controled Trials, Physicians Data Query and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We planned to include patients of any age with a suspected intracranial LGG receiving biopsy or resection within a randomized clinical trial (RCT) or controlled clinical trial (CCT). Patients with prior resections, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy for LGG were excluded. Outcome measures included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), functionally independent survival (FIS), adverse events, symptom control, and quality of life (QoL). A total of 1375 updated citations were searched and critically analyzed for relevance. This was undertaken independently by two review authors. The original electronic database searches yielded a total of 2764 citations. In total, 4139 citations have been critically analyzed for this updated review. No new RCTs of biopsy or resection for LGG were identified. No additional ineligible non-randomized studies (NRS) were included in this updated review. Twenty other ineligible studies were previously retrieved for further analysis despite not meeting the pre-specified criteria. Ten studies were retrospective or were literature reviews. Three studies were prospective, however they were limited to tumor recurrence and volumetric analysis and extent of resection. One study was a population-based parallel cohort in Norway, but not an RCT. Four studies were RCTs, however patients were randomized with respect to varying radiotherapy regimens to assess timing and dose of radiation. One RCT was on high-grade gliomas (HGGs) and not LGG. Finally, one RCT evaluated diffusion tensor imaging (DTI)-based neuro-navigation for surgical resection. Since the last version of this review, no new studies have been identified for inclusion and currently there are no RCTs or CCTs available on which to base definitive clinical decisions. Therefore, physicians must approach each case individually and weigh the risks and benefits of each intervention until further evidence is available. Some retrospective studies and non-randomized prospective studies do seem to suggest improved OS and seizure control correlating to higher extent of resection. Future research could focus on RCTs to determine outcomes benefits for biopsy versus resection.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Unknown 145 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Master 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Other 12 8%
Other 33 23%
Unknown 30 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 47%
Neuroscience 13 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 38 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,113,541
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,913
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,938
of 263,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#136
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.