INTRODUCTION: @entity5513 ( @entity5513 ) @entity5 size, a significant prognostic indicator, is closely analyzed in @entity1 undergoing observation or treatment. It has historically been reported in terms of linear size; however, volumetric assessments can now be performed routinely. We examine the use of described measurement techniques in large published clinical series to assess their consistency. METHODS: Computerized searches of the MEDLINE database (Pubmed) from 1975 to August 2014 were conducted with the purpose of identifying large series describing the management of VSs. Articles that reported @entity5 size measurements were included if they described greater than 600 @entity1 . RESULTS: 19 studies were found fitting the inclusion criteria, consisting of large retrospective studies with sample sizes ranging from 614 to 2991. A total of 17 studies reported linear measurements, while 2 studies reported volumetric assessments of @entity5 size. Significant variations were found regarding methods for linear measurement. Furthermore, several papers did not provide any details regarding the measurement technique. Inclusion of intracanalicular portions of the @entity5 was highly variable. Volume assessments were performed by segmented volume analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among the large published series on VSs, significant variation exists regarding the utilized measurement technique to assess size. Volumetric assessments have the greatest clinical utility, sensitivity and accuracy in measuring @entity5 size and growth. Standardization of volume assessments will provide the best method for producing consistent literature findings.

Analysis of XXXX size: A literature review on consistency with measurement techniques.

@entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['tumor'] @entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients'] @entity5513 :: ('MESH:D009464', 'Disease') :: ['Vestibular schwannoma', 'VS']
@entity5513 :: (MESH:D009464,Disease) :: ['vestibular schwannoma']
