↓ Skip to main content

The impact of routine surveillance screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to detect tumour recurrence in children with central nervous system (CNS) tumours: protocol for a systematic review…

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The impact of routine surveillance screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to detect tumour recurrence in children with central nervous system (CNS) tumours: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0318-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline Main, Simon P. Stevens, Simon Bailey, Robert Phillips, Barry Pizer, Keith Wheatley, Pamela R. Kearns, Martin English, Sophie Wilne, Jayne S. Wilson, Caroline Main, Simon P. Stevens, Simon Bailey, Robert Phillips, Barry Pizer, Keith Wheatley, Pamela R. Kearns, Martin English, Sophie Wilne, Jayne S. Wilson

Abstract

The aim of this study is to assess the impact of routine MRI surveillance to detect tumour recurrence in children with no new neurological signs or symptoms compared with alternative follow-up practices, including periodic clinical and physical examinations and the use of non-routine imaging upon presentation with disease signs or symptoms. Standard systematic review methods aimed at minimising bias will be employed for study identification, selection and data extraction. Ten electronic databases have been searched, and further citation searching and reference checking will be employed. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials assessing the impact of routine surveillance MRI to detect tumour recurrence in children with no new neurological signs or symptoms compared to alternative follow-up schedules including imaging upon presentation with disease signs or symptoms will be included. The primary outcome is time to change in therapeutic intervention. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, surrogate survival outcomes, response rates, diagnostic yield per set of images, adverse events, quality of survival and validated measures of family psychological functioning and anxiety. Two reviewers will independently screen and select studies for inclusion. Quality assessment will be undertaken using the Cochrane Collaboration's tools for assessing risk of bias. Where possible, data will be summarised using combined estimates of effect for time to treatment change, survival outcomes and response rates using assumption-free methods. Further sub-group analyses and meta-regression models will be specified and undertaken to explore potential sources of heterogeneity between studies within each tumour type if necessary. Assessment of the impact of surveillance imaging in children with CNS tumours is methodologically complex. The evidence base is likely to be heterogeneous in terms of imaging protocols, definitions of radiological response and diagnostic accuracy of tumour recurrence due to changes in imaging technology over time. Furthermore, the delineation of tumour recurrence from either pseudo-progression or radiation necrosis after radiotherapy is potentially problematic and linked to the timing of follow-up assessments. However, given the current routine practice of MRI surveillance in the follow-up of children with CNS tumours in the UK and the resource implications, it is important to evaluate the cost-benefit profile of this practice. PROSPERO CRD42016036802.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Researcher 4 11%
Other 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 32%
Psychology 4 11%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 9 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 August 2017.
All research outputs
#9,292,789
of 11,618,931 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#745
of 862 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,203
of 238,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#36
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,618,931 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 862 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 238,483 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.