Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25380104›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neurosurgery2015

Outcome methods used in clinical studies of Chiari malformation Type I: a systematic review.

Jacob K Greenberg, Eric Milner, Chester K Yarbrough, Kim Lipsey, Jay F Piccirillo, Matthew D Smyth, Tae Sung Park, David D Limbrick

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neurosurgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02669836 (Posterior Fossa Decompression With or Without Duraplasty for Chiari Type I Malformation With Syringomyelia), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02669836 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Posterior Fossa Decompression With or Without Duraplasty for Chiari Type I Malformation With Syringomyelia

TypeinterventionalSponsorWashington University School of MedicineRan2016 to 2020Enrolled162ConditionsArnold-Chiari Malformation, Type 1, Chiari Malformation Type I, Type I Arnold-Chiari Malformation, SyringomyeliaArmsPosterior fossa decompression, Dural Augmentation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Chiari I malformation.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Natural history of Chiari I malformation-syringomyelia: longitudinal cohort study.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Diagnosis and treatment of Chiari malformation type 1 in children: the International Consensus Document.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2022
    Article
  12. Diagnosis and treatment of Chiari malformation and syringomyelia in adults: international consensus document.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Chiari 1 malformation: age-based outcomes in a paediatric surgical cohort.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2020
    Article
  19. Bony decompression vs duraplasty for Chiari I malformation: does the eternal dilemma matter?Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2019
    Review
  20. Outcomes and complications for individual neurosurgeons for the treatment of Chiari I malformation at a children's hospital.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2019
    Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jacob K GreenbergDepartments of Neurological Surgery and.
Eric Milner
Chester K Yarbrough
Kim Lipsey
Jay F Piccirillo
Matthew D Smyth
Tae Sung Park
David D Limbrick

Funding

Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesUL1TR000448 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesTL1TR000449 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$2.5M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR000449NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000448
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectChiari malformation Type I (CM-I) is a common and often debilitating neurological disease. Efforts to improve treatment of CM-I are impeded by inconsistent and limited methods of evaluating clinical outcomes. To understand current approaches and lay a foundation for future research, the authors conducted a systematic review of the methods used in original published research articles to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients treated for CM-I.

methodsThe authors searched PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov , and Cochrane databases to identify publications between January 2003 and August 2013 that met the following criteria: 1) reported clinical outcomes in patients treated for CM-I; 2) were original research articles; 3) included at least 10 patients or, if a comparative study, at least 5 patients per group; and 4) were restricted to patients with CM-I.

resultsAmong the 74 papers meeting inclusion criteria, there was wide variation in the outcome methods used. However, all approaches were broadly grouped into 3 categories: 1) "gestalt" impression of overall symptomatic improvement (n=45 papers); 2) postoperative change in specific signs or symptoms (n=20); or 3) results of various standardized assessment scales (n=22). Among standardized scales, 11 general function measures were used, compared with 6 disease-specific tools. Only 3 papers used scales validated in patients with CM-I. To facilitate a uniform comparison of these heterogeneous approaches, the authors appraised articles in multiple domains defined a priori as integral to reporting clinical outcomes in CM-I. Notably, only 7 articles incorporated patient-response instruments when reporting outcome, and only 22 articles explicitly assessed quality of life.

conclusionsThe methods used to evaluate clinical outcomes in CM-I are inconsistent and frequently not comparable, complicating efforts to analyze results across studies. Development, validation, and incorporation of a small number of disease-specific patient-based instruments will improve the quality of research and care of CM-I patients.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicAge FactorsArnold-Chiari MalformationHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsResearch Designassessment toolsCCOS = Chicago Chiari Outcome ScaleChiari malformation Type ICM-I = Chiari malformation Type IJOA = Japanese Orthopaedic Associationoutcome methodssystematic reviewtreatment outcomeVAS = visual analog scale

Identifiers

PMID25380104
PMCPMC6360028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.