Evidence-based medicine in neurosurgery: an academic publication view

Topic Reviews in Neurosurgical Journals: An Analysis of Publication Trends

BACKGROUND

Topic review articles have become increasingly popular, even as the neurosurgical community looks to peer-reviewed journals as a source of discovery in basic and clinical science. In this study we quantify the prevalence of topic review articles in top neurosurgery journals.

METHODS

The top 20 neurosurgery journals were defined by Google Scholar metrics. The PubMed database quantified the number of topic reviews compared with the total number of articles published; data were analyzed for trends between 1945 and 2022.

RESULTS

All 20 journals have published topic reviews since the start of records on PubMed. Total publications have increased from <500 before 1980 to >8000 in 2022. Topic reviews have increased from <1% before 1980, to 2% by 2000, and to 3%-4% since 2010. The linear trend line equation for the total percentage of reviews in all journals shows a small increase in topic reviews per year. Three journals decreased review publication whereas 4 have reached prevalence >10%. The prevalence of topic reviews increased significantly from the first (2.13) to the last (4.76) year of publication (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing prevalence of topic reviews is seen in most neurosurgery journals, reflecting supply and demand. Although there are benefits to these articles, they do not contribute novel data. Actions such as defining and labeling this publication type in journals and databases will improve the transparency of research methods. Academic neurosurgeons should further expand their knowledge and not become focused only on introspection into and review of neurosurgical understanding and practice.

Characteristics of the clinical and global neurosurgical research publications from Africa: A scoping review

Introduction

Scientific research has a direct, profound impact on healthcare systems worldwide. While an upward trend can be observed in the number of produced papers in the neurosurgical specialty, disparities still exist between African neurosurgeons on one side and between African neurosurgeons and neurosurgeons from high income countries, on the other.

Research question

This study aims to analyze neurosurgical research produced in Africa to identify gaps in the literature and provide recommendations for aspiring African neurosurgeons for essential research areas.

Materials and methods

Four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were systematically searched for relevant articles on neurosurgery published by African authors. The three main inclusion criteria were: Articles published in the Neurosurgical field, articles published by African authors (whether first authors or co-authors) and articles published in Africa. Data extracted included the study design, scope, neurosurgical subspecialty, and the authors' nationalities.

Results

A total of 982 articles were included in the analysis. Of these articles, 889 (90.6%) were primary, 48 (4.9%) secondary, and 44 (4.5%) other types of research. Global Neurosurgery papers represent 7% of African neurosurgery research output. Most common primary studies included retrospective cohort (32.4%), case reports (28.3%), and prospective cohort (13.8%) studies. The most common secondary research articles were literature reviews (4.9%), letters to the editor (1.2%), and systematic reviews and meta-analyses (0.8%). Common research areas were neuro-oncology 242 (24.7%), spinal surgery 157 (16%), and cerebrovascular (14%). The most common nationalities of the first authors were Egyptian (32.4%), Moroccan (15%), and Nigerian (14.2%).

Discussion and conclusion

This study identifies increased African authorship in neurosurgical research in recent years. Nevertheless, many countries still lack representation in the neurosurgical research scene.Furthermore, a high percentage of the published papers is of low evidence. Therefore, we recommend that African neurosurgical researchers focus more on clinical trials and systematic reviews that directly translate to improving clinical practice. African neurosurgeons should also consider more collaboration between African authors.

Impact of international research fellows in neurosurgery: results from a single academic center

OBJECTIVE

International research fellows have been historically involved in academic neurosurgery in the United States (US). To date, the contribution of international research fellows has been underreported. Herein, the authors aimed to quantify the academic output of international research fellows in the Department of Neurosurgery at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

METHODS

Research fellows with Doctor of Medicine (MD), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), or MD/PhD degrees from a non-US institution who worked in the Hopkins Department of Neurosurgery for at least 6 months over the past decade (2010-2020) were included in this study. Publications produced during fellowship, number of citations, and journal impact factors (IFs) were analyzed using ANOVA. A survey was sent to collect information on personal background, demographics, and academic activities.

RESULTS

Sixty-four international research fellows were included, with 42 (65.6%) having MD degrees, 17 (26.6%) having PhD degrees, and 5 (7.8%) having MD/PhD degrees. During an average 27.9 months of fellowship, 460 publications were produced in 136 unique journals, with 8628 citations and a cumulative journal IF of 1665.73. There was no significant difference in total number of publications, first-author publications, and total citations per person among the different degree holders. Persons holding MD/PhDs had a higher number of citations per publication per person (p = 0.027), whereas those with MDs had higher total IFs per person (p = 0.048). Among the 43 (67.2%) survey responders, 34 (79.1%) had nonimmigrant visas at the start of the fellowship, 16 (37.2%) were self-paid or funded by their country of origin, and 35 (81.4%) had mentored at least one US medical student, nonmedical graduate student, or undergraduate student.

CONCLUSIONS

International research fellows at the authors' institution have contributed significantly to academic neurosurgery. Although they have faced major challenges like maintaining nonimmigrant visas, negotiating cultural/language differences, and managing self-sustainability, their scientific productivity has been substantial. Additionally, the majority of fellows have provided reciprocal mentorship to US students.

Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Neurosurgery: a Systematic Literature Review Using Topic Modeling. Part II: Research Objectives and Perspectives

The current increase in the number of publications on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in neurosurgery indicates a new trend in clinical neuroscience.

The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic literature review to highlight the main directions and trends in the use of AI in neurosurgery.

Evidence-based medicine in neurosurgery: why and how?

Since its inception, medical training and practice are based primarily on the clinical experience provided by the mentors of each of the medical schools. In the 1990s, the first steps were taken for the construction of what we now know as evidence-based medicine. Evidence-based medicine is the set of studies, methods, and principles for the prevention of medical diseases, management guidelines, and algorithms used in sources of evidence. Neurosurgery based on evidence has emerged thanks to advances in neuroscience and information technology that allows the globalization of current scientific information. The results of important reviews on the levels of evidence in neurosurgery are low in percentages of high-quality evidence in this field of medicine. Based on the above, the objective of this manuscript is to describe the application of evidence in neurosurgery, the current state of the art in evidence-based medicine, and the steps needed to create evidence of the best quality in neurosurgery.

Assessing the Effects of Publication Bias on Reported Outcomes of Cervical Disc Replacement and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-Epidemiologic Study

BACKGROUND

There have been several clinical trials as well as observational studies that have compared the outcomes of different cervical disc replacement (CDR) devices with anterior cervical disc replacement and fusion (ACDF). Although the results of these studies have provided sufficient evidence for the safety of CDR, there is still a lack of consensus in terms of longer-term outcomes, with studies providing equivocal results for the 2 procedures. In the current study, we used a novel methodology, a meta-epidemiologic study, to investigate the impact of study characteristics on the observed effects in the literature on CDR and ACDF.

METHODS

Data were abstracted from available meta-analyses regarding author, study author, year, intervention events, control events, and sample size, as well as year and geographic location of each study within the meta-analyses. We grouped the studies based on median year of publication as well as the region of the submitting author(s). Odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and standard errors of individual studies were calculated based on the number of events and sample size for each arm (ACDF or CDR). Further, results of outcomes from individual studies were pooled and a meta-analysis was conducted. Ratio of odds ratio (ROR) was used to assess the impact of each of these factors on estimates of the study for CDR versus ACDF.

RESULTS

A total of 13 meta-analyses were analyzed after exclusions. Using the results from 10 meta-analyses, we found that studies published before 2012 reported significantly lower odds of a reoperation after CDR (vs. ACDF), compared with studies published after 2012 (ROR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.67; P < 0.001). We did not observe a significant impact of study year on difference in estimates between CDR and ACDF for adjacent segment disease (ROR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.64-1.55; P = 0.465). The region of submitting author was also found to have no impact on results of published studies.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that there may be a publication bias regarding the year of publication, with earlier studies reporting lower reoperation rates for CDR compared with ACDF.

African Contribution to the World Neurosurgical Literature During the Past Two Decades (1999-2018) Using PubMed Database

BACKGROUND

To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has assessed the neurosurgical publications from Africa. A bibliometric analysis was performed in the present study to evaluate the contribution of African authors in neurosurgical journals worldwide and to discuss the approaches that could be used to enhance the quantity and quality of publications on this issue.

METHODS

A literature search of neurosurgical publications by African investigators was performed using the PubMed database from 1999 to 2018. The total number of articles per country was tabulated and normalized by the number of neurosurgeons in each country.

RESULTS

A total of 974 articles reported from 1999 to 2018 from 31 African countries were identified and analyzed. The number of African neurosurgical publications have increased remarkably during the past decade. However, a wide disparity exists in the productivity among the countries, especially when normalized by the number of neurosurgeons. Most of the research publications have been case series and case reports, with very few clinical trials, meta-analyses, or international collaborations. According to the neurosurgical research areas, the most representative subspecialties were the spine, intracranial tumor, hydrocephalus, and head injury.

CONCLUSIONS

African neurosurgeons will be able to meet the challenges of the new century with the appropriate use of its resources and staff, regardless of the difficulties they face. However, African neurosurgical research could be improved by teaching research methods and medical writing and should focus more on modern neurosurgical topics by highlighting continental particularities. African neurosurgeons should collaborate with each other (locally, regionally, and abroad) and with foreign centers for better quality research and international visibility.