SynthesisNeuroradiology2026
Magnetic resonance imaging and the evaluation of vestibular schwannomas: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Neuroradiology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe assessment of vestibular schwannoma (VS) requires a standardized measurement approach as growth is a key element in defining treatment strategy for VS. Volumetric measurements offer higher sensitivity and precision, but existing methods of segmentation, are labour-intensive, lack standardisation and are prone to variability and subjectivity. A new core set of measurement indicators reported consistently, will support clinical decision-making and facilitate evidence synthesis. This systematic review aimed to identify indicators used in (1) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition and (2) measurement or (3) growth of VS. This work is expected to inform a Delphi consensus.
methodsSystematic searches of Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central were undertaken on 4th October 2024. Studies that assessed the evaluation of VS with MRI, between 2014 and 2024 were included.
resultsThe final dataset consisted of 102 studies and 19,001 patients. Eighty-six (84.3%) studies employed post contrast T1 as the MRI acquisition of choice for evaluating VS. Nine (8.8%) studies additionally employed heavily weighted T2 sequences such as constructive interference in steady state (CISS) and FIESTA-C. Only 45 (44.1%) studies reported the slice thickness with the majority 38 (84.4%) choosing <3 mm in thickness. Sixty-four (62,7%) studies measured volume 59 (57.8%) measured the largest linear dimension; Twenty-two (21.6%) studies used both measurements. Four studies employed semi-automated or automated segmentation processes to measure the volumes of VS. Of 68 studies investigating growth, 54 (79.4%) provided a threshold. Significant variation in volumetric growth was observed but the threshold for significant percentage change reported by most studies was 20% (n = 18).
conclusionSubstantial variation in MRI acquisition, and methods for evaluating measurement and growth of VS, exists across the literature. This lack of standardization is likely attributed to resource constraints and the fact that currently available volumetric segmentation methods are very labour-intensive. Following the identification of the indicators employed in the literature, this study aims to develop a Delphi consensus between the British Skull Base Society, European Skull Base Society and European Society of Head and Neck Radiology for the standardized measurement of VS and uptake in employing a data-driven artificial intelligence-based measuring tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.