The role of evidence-based medicine in neurosurgery

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.

Educating the Next Generation of Global Neurosurgeons: Competencies, Skills, and Resources for Medical Students Interested in Global Neurosurgery

BACKGROUND

Global neurosurgery operates at the intersection of neurosurgery and public health. Although most global neurosurgery initiatives have targeted neurosurgeons and trainees, medical students represent the future of global neurosurgery.

METHODS

A narrative review of the literature regarding research methodology, education, economics, health policy, health advocacy, relevant to global neurosurgery was conducted.

RESULTS

We summarize pearls that all medical students interested in global neurosurgery should know.

DISCUSSION

To become effective agents of change within global neurosurgery, medical students must master competencies of motivation, organization, collaborativeness, dependability, flexibility, resilience, creative problem-solving, ethical thinking, cultural humility, and global awareness and gain knowledge and skills regarding research, education, policy making, and advocacy. Discussions with neurosurgeons and trainees, neurosurgery interest groups, conferences, university global neurosurgery initiatives, and student organizations represent opportunities for learning and becoming involved in global 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.

Importance and Presence of High-Quality Evidence for Clinical Decisions in Neurosurgery: International Survey of Neurosurgeons

BACKGROUND

The publication rate of neurosurgical guidelines has increased tremendously over the past decade; however, only a small proportion of clinical decisions appear to be based on high-quality evidence.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate the evidence available within neurosurgery and its value within clinical practice according to neurosurgeons.

METHODS

A Web-based survey was sent to 2552 neurosurgeons, who were members of the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies.

RESULTS

The response rate to the survey was 6.78% (173/2552). According to 48.6% (84/173) of the respondents, neurosurgery clinical practices are based on less evidence than other medical specialties and not enough high-quality evidence is available; however, 84.4% (146/173) of the respondents believed neurosurgery is amenable to evidence. Of the respondents, 59.0% (102/173) considered the neurosurgical guidelines in their hospital to be based on high-quality evidence, most of whom considered their own treatments to be based on high-quality (level I and/or level II) data (84.3%, 86/102; significantly more than for the neurosurgeons who did not consider the hospital guidelines to be based on high-quality evidence: 55%, 12/22; P<.001). Also, more neurosurgeons with formal training believed they could understand, criticize, and interpret statistical outcomes presented in journals than those without formal training (93%, 56/60 and 68%, 57/84 respectively; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the respondents, neurosurgery is based on high-quality evidence less often than other medical specialties. The results of the survey indicate that formal training in evidence-based medicine would enable neurosurgeons to better understand, criticize, and interpret statistical outcomes presented in journals.

Evidence-based neurosurgery. Basic concepts for the appraisal and application of scientific information to patient care (Part II)

Medical evidence is obtainable from approaches, which might be descriptive, analytic and integrative and ranked into levels of evidence, graded according to quality and summarized into strengths of recommendation. Sources of evidence range from expert opinions through well-randomized control trials to meta-analyses. The conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions related to the care of individual patients defines the concept of evidence-based neurosurgery (EBN). We reviewed reference books of clinical epidemiology, evidence-based practice and other previously related articles addressing principles of evidence-based practice in neurosurgery. Based on existing theories and models and our cumulative years of experience and expertise conducting research and promoting EBN, we have synthesized and presented a holistic overview of the concept of EBN. We have also underscored the importance of clinical research and its relationship to EBN. Useful electronic resources are provided. The concept of critical appraisal is introduced.

Development and implementation of guidelines in neurosurgery

Although it is intuitive that any neurosurgeon would seek to consistently apply the best available evidence to patient management, the application of evidence-based medicine (EBM) principles and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) remains variable. This article reviews the origin and process of EBM, and the development, assessment, and applicability of EBM and CPGs in neurosurgical care, aiming to demonstrate that CPGs are one of the valid available options that exist to improve quality of care. CPGs are not intended to define the standard of care but to compile dynamic advisory statements, which need to be updated as new evidence emerges.

An evidence-based medicine model for rare and often neglected neoplastic conditions

Object

The National Institutes of Health recommends strategies to obtain evidence for the treatment of rare conditions such as primary tumors of the spine (PTSs). These tumors have a low incidence and are pathologically heterogeneous, and treatment approaches are diverse. Appropriate evidence-based care is imperative. Failure to follow validated oncological principles may lead to unnecessary mortality and profound morbidity. This paper outlines a scientific model that provides significant evidence guiding the treatment of PTSs.

Methods

A four-stage approach was used: 1) planning: data from large-volume centers were reviewed to provide insight; 2) recruitment: centers were enrolled and provided the necessary infrastructure; 3) retrospective stage: existing medical records were reviewed and completed with survival data; and 4) prospective stage: prospective data collection has been implemented. The AOSpine Knowledge Forum Tumor designed six modules: demographic, clinical, diagnostic, therapeutic, local recurrence, survival, and perioperative morbidity data fields and provided funding.

Results

It took 18 months to implement Stages 1–3, while Stage 4 is ongoing. A total of 1495 tumor cases were captured and diagnosed as one of 18 PTS histotypes. In addition, a PTS biobank network has been created to link clinical data with tumor pathology and molecular analysis.

Conclusions

This scientific model has not only aggregated a large amount of PTS data, but has also established an international collaborative network of spine oncology centers. Access to large volumes of data will generate further research to guide and enhance PTS clinical management. This model could be applied to other rare neoplastic conditions. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01643174 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

The endoscopic endonasal approach to the odontoid and its impact on early extubation and feeding

OBJECT

The gold-standard surgical approach to the odontoid is via the transoral route. This approach necessitates opening of the oropharynx and is associated with risks of infection, and swallowing and breathing complications. The endoscopic endonasal approach has the potential to reduce these complications as the oral cavity is avoided. There are fewer than 25 such cases reported to date. The authors present a consecutive, single-institution series of 9 patients who underwent the endonasal endoscopic approach to the odontoid.

METHODS

The charts of 9 patients who underwent endonasal endoscopic surgery to the odontoid between January 2005 and August 2013 were reviewed. The clinical presentation, radiographic findings, surgical management, complications, and outcome, particularly with respect to time to extubation and feeding, were analyzed. Radiographic measurements of the distance between the back of the odontoid and the front of the cervicomedullary junction (CMJ) were calculated, as well as the location of any residual bone fragments.

RESULTS

There were 7 adult and 2 pediatric patients in this series. The mean age of the adults was 54.8 years; the pediatric patients were 7 and 14 years. There were 5 females and 4 males. The mean follow-up was 42.9 months. Symptoms were resolved or improved in all but 1 patient, who had concurrent polyneuropathy. The distance between the odontoid and CMJ increased by 2.34 ± 0.43 mm (p = 0.03). A small, clinically insignificant fragment remained after surgery, always on the left side, in 57% of patients. Mean times to extubation and oral feeding were on postoperative Days 0.3 and 1, respectively. There was one posterior cervical wound infection; there were 2 cases of epistaxis requiring repacking of the nose and no instances of breathing or swallowing complications or velopharyngeal insufficiency.

CONCLUSIONS

This series of 9 cases of endonasal endoscopic odontoidectomy highlights the advantages of the approach in permitting early extubation and early feeding and minimizing complications compared with transoral surgery. Special attention must be given to bone on the left side of the odontoid if the surgeon is standing on the right side.

Twelve years of scientific production on Medline by Latin American spine surgeons

Background

Despite the small contribution of LA in the Science Citation Index (SCI), a growing contribution by LA research to international literature has been observed in recent years.

Study Design

Systematic review.

Purpose

To evaluate the scientific contribution of Latin American (LA) Spine Surgeons in the last decade.

Methods

A literature search of publications by LA spinal surgeons on topics concerning the spine or spinal cord was performed using an online database; Pubmed.gov. The results were limited to articles published from January 2000 to December 2011. The quality of the publication was evaluated with the journal impact factor (IF), Oxford classification and number of citations.

Results

This study comprised 320 articles published in the Medline database by LA spine surgeons from 2000 to 2011. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of publications by LA spine surgeons. It was observed that 38.4% of LA papers were published in LA journals. 46.6% of the articles were published in journals with an IF lower than 1, and there was no statistically significant difference in the number of articles published in journals with a higher IF during the period. Linear-by-linear association analysis demonstrated an improvement in the level of evidence provided by LA articles published in recent years.

Conclusions

This study showed a growth in the number of publications in last 12 years by LA spinal surgeons. It is necessary to discuss a way to increase quantity and quality of scientific publications, mainly through a better education in research.

Evidence-based clinical management and utilization of new technology in European neurosurgery

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has become one of the pillars of modern patient care. However, neurosurgery has always been an experience-based and technology-driven discipline, and it remains unknown to which extent European neurosurgeons follow high-level evidence-based recommendations.

METHODS

We conducted a Web-based survey with a 15-item questionnaire about evidence-based clinical management and utilization of new technology among European neurosurgeons. Two different sum scores were calculated from the questions concerning clinical practice; evidence-based treatment score and new technology score. A high evidence-based treatment score means that more clinical conditions (i.e., study questions) were managed in compliance with the available highest levels of evidence from published clinical trials. A high new technology score reflects the use of a high number of modern tools in neurosurgical practice.

RESULTS

A total of 239 neurosurgeons from 30 different European countries answered the questionnaire. There were large variations among European neurosurgeons in providing evidence-based care and in utilization of various modern tools. There were significant regional differences in evidence-based treatment scores and modern technology scores with higher scores in northern and western Europe. High-volume institutions were not associated with better evidence-based treatment scores, but had significantly higher new technology scores. There were significantly higher new technology scores at university hospitals and a trend towards higher evidence-based treatment scores compared to other hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical management in neurosurgery does not always comply with the best available evidence and there are large regional differences in clinical management and in utilization of various modern tools. The position of evidence-based medicine in European neurosurgery seems weak and this may be a threat to the quality of care.

Surgical practice: evidence or anecdote

OBJECTIVES

Our objective is to highlight a few surgical practices that are not based on evidence but are still taught in surgical education, and to assess our experience with these practices.

DESIGN

We identified 3 practices (clamping of nasogastric tubes before removal, bowel preparation before elective colon resection, and elective sigmoid colectomy following 2 bouts of diverticulitis), identified the data supporting each practice, and administered a survey to faculty and residents at our institution.

SETTING

Wright State University Department of Surgery, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-one faculty and 35 residents responded to the survey.

RESULTS

No studies were found relating to clamping nasogastric tubes before removal. Seven faculty (33%) and 11 residents (31%) used this practice. Two faculty (10%) and 0 residents felt this was an evidence-based practice. Faculty were more likely to have reviewed the evidence (85% vs 40%, p < 0.001). Level 2 evidence has shown bowel preparation did not improve outcomes relating to anastomotic leak, wound infection, or septic complications in elective colon resection. Twenty faculty (95%) and 34 residents (97%) used this practice. Faculty were more likely to believe this to be evidence-based (85% vs 49%, p = 0.01). There has been no level 1 or 2 evidence showing that sigmoid colectomy following 2 bouts of diverticulitis improves morbidity or mortality. Fourteen faculty (70%) and 26 residents (76%) reported using this practice. Twelve faculty (60%) and 21 residents (60%) felt this was evidence-based.

CONCLUSIONS

Frequent use of surgical practices without evidence support can create a misperception that such practices are evidence-based. Faculty are more likely to change a practice after obtaining continuing medical education, suggesting that residents may need validation by faculty practice of evidence-based procedures before incorporation into their clinical care.