↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Magnetic resonance perfusion for differentiating low-grade from high-grade gliomas at first presentation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
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

8 X users
3 Facebook pages


41 Dimensions

Readers on

230 Mendeley
Magnetic resonance perfusion for differentiating low-grade from high-grade gliomas at first presentation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011551.pub2
Pubmed ID

Jill M Abrigo, Daniel M Fountain, James M Provenzale, Eric K Law, Joey SW Kwong, Michael G Hart, Wilson Wai San Tam


Gliomas are the most common primary brain tumour. They are graded using the WHO classification system, with Grade II-IV astrocytomas, oligodendrogliomas and oligoastrocytomas. Low-grade gliomas (LGGs) are WHO Grade II infiltrative brain tumours that typically appear solid and non-enhancing on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. People with LGG often have little or no neurologic deficit, so may opt for a watch-and-wait-approach over surgical resection, radiotherapy or both, as surgery can result in early neurologic disability. Occasionally, high-grade gliomas (HGGs, WHO Grade III and IV) may have the same MRI appearance as LGGs. Taking a watch-and-wait approach could be detrimental for the patient if the tumour progresses quickly. Advanced imaging techniques are increasingly used in clinical practice to predict the grade of the tumour and to aid clinical decision of when to intervene surgically. One such advanced imaging technique is magnetic resonance (MR) perfusion, which detects abnormal haemodynamic changes related to increased angiogenesis and vascular permeability, or "leakiness" that occur with aggressive tumour histology. These are reflected by changes in cerebral blood volume (CBV) expressed as rCBV (ratio of tumoural CBV to normal appearing white matter CBV) and permeability, measured by Ktrans. To determine the diagnostic test accuracy of MR perfusion for identifying patients with primary solid and non-enhancing LGGs (WHO Grade II) at first presentation in children and adults. In performing the quantitative analysis for this review, patients with LGGs were considered disease positive while patients with HGGs were considered disease negative.To determine what clinical features and methodological features affect the accuracy of MR perfusion. Our search strategy used two concepts: (1) glioma and the various histologies of interest, and (2) MR perfusion. We used structured search strategies appropriate for each database searched, which included: MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), and Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index). The most recent search for this review was run on 9 November 2016.We also identified 'grey literature' from online records of conference proceedings from the American College of Radiology, European Society of Radiology, American Society of Neuroradiology and European Society of Neuroradiology in the last 20 years. The titles and abstracts from the search results were screened to obtain full-text articles for inclusion or exclusion. We contacted authors to clarify or obtain missing/unpublished data.We included cross-sectional studies that performed dynamic susceptibility (DSC) or dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MR perfusion or both of untreated LGGs and HGGs, and where rCBV and/or Ktrans values were reported. We selected participants with solid and non-enhancing gliomas who underwent MR perfusion within two months prior to histological confirmation. We excluded studies on participants who received radiation or chemotherapy before MR perfusion, or those without histologic confirmation. Two review authors extracted information on study characteristics and data, and assessed the methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We present a summary of the study characteristics and QUADAS-2 results, and rate studies as good quality when they have low risk of bias in the domains of reference standard of tissue diagnosis and flow and timing between MR perfusion and tissue diagnosis.In the quantitative analysis, LGGs were considered disease positive, while HGGs were disease negative. The sensitivity refers to the proportion of LGGs detected by MR perfusion, and specificity as the proportion of detected HGGs. We constructed two-by-two tables with true positives and false negatives as the number of correctly and incorrectly diagnosed LGG, respectively, while true negatives and false positives are the number of correctly and incorrectly diagnosed HGG, respectively.Meta-analysis was performed on studies with two-by-two tables, with further sensitivity analysis using good quality studies. Limited data precluded regression analysis to explore heterogeneity but subgroup analysis was performed on tumour histology groups. Seven studies with small sample sizes (4 to 48) met our inclusion criteria. These were mostly conducted in university hospitals and mostly recruited adult patients. All studies performed DSC MR perfusion and described heterogeneous acquisition and post-processing methods. Only one study performed DCE MR perfusion, precluding quantitative analysis.Using patient-level data allowed selection of individual participants relevant to the review, with generally low risks of bias for the participant selection, reference standard and flow and timing domains. Most studies did not use a pre-specified threshold, which was considered a significant source of bias, however this did not affect quantitative analysis as we adopted a common rCBV threshold of 1.75 for the review. Concerns regarding applicability were low.From published and unpublished data, 115 participants were selected and included in the meta-analysis. Average rCBV (range) of 83 LGGs and 32 HGGs were 1.29 (0.01 to 5.10) and 1.89 (0.30 to 6.51), respectively. Using the widely accepted rCBV threshold of <1.75 to differentiate LGG from HGG, the summary sensitivity/specificity estimates were 0.83 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.93)/0.48 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.90). Sensitivity analysis using five good quality studies yielded sensitivity/specificity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.91)/0.67 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.98). Subgroup analysis for tumour histology showed sensitivity/specificity of 0.92 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.99)/0.42 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.95) in astrocytomas (6 studies, 55 participants) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.93)/0.53 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.88) in oligodendrogliomas+oligoastrocytomas (6 studies, 56 participants). Data were too sparse to investigate any differences across subgroups. The limited available evidence precludes reliable estimation of the performance of DSC MR perfusion-derived rCBV for the identification of grade in untreated solid and non-enhancing LGG from that of HGG. Pooled data yielded a wide range of estimates for both sensitivity (range 66% to 93% for detection of LGGs) and specificity (range 9% to 90% for detection of HGGs). Other clinical and methodological features affecting accuracy of the technique could not be determined from the limited data. A larger sample size of both LGG and HGG, preferably using a standardised scanning approach and with an updated reference standard incorporating molecular profiles, is required for a definite conclusion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 230 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 12%
Student > Master 23 10%
Researcher 22 10%
Other 22 10%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 77 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 27%
Neuroscience 16 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 7%
Psychology 8 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 2%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 92 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 October 2019.
All research outputs
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 442,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 442,637 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 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.