Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27481235›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2017

Commentary : The value of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring: evidence, equipoise and outcomes.

R N Holdefer, S A Skinner

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06480370 (Optimization of Transcranial Motor Evoked Potentials in Supratentorial Surgeries), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT06480370 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Optimization of Transcranial Motor Evoked Potentials in Supratentorial Surgeries

TypeinterventionalSponsorInsel Gruppe AG, University Hospital BernRan2025 to 2028Enrolled203ConditionsSurgeryArmsISIS IOM System
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

2 authors.

R N HoldeferDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Box 359740, Seattle, WA, 98104-2499, USA.
S A SkinnerIntraoperative Monitoring, Department of Neurophysiology, Abbott Northwestern Hospital, 800 E 28th Street, Minneapolis, MN, 55407, USA. drskinnermd@yahoo.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) has grown despite an absence of randomized controlled trials that might unequivocally demonstrate improved outcomes. At issue is how to demonstrate value when other evidence indicates patient harms (opportunity cost) if IONM is withheld for the sake of randomization. In this article we review other non-randomized methods to assess the effects of IONM on post-operative outcomes. We also examine how clinical equipoise may resolve whether (or not) an anticipated controlled study is ethical. We conclude that the value of IONM in a particular surgical setting should be determined by a benefits/harms analysis based on all the available evidence.

Indexed as

Intraoperative Neurophysiological MonitoringMonitoring, IntraoperativeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBiomarkersElectromyographyEthics, MedicalEvoked Potentials, MotorEvoked Potentials, SomatosensoryHumansNeurosurgical ProceduresObservational Studies as TopicResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeBiomarkersEquipoiseEvidence-based medicineIntraoperative neurophysiological monitoringMotor evoked potentialOpportunity costSomatosensory evoked potentialSurrogate endpoint

Identifiers

PMID27481235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.