Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27612851›Full record

SynthesisJournal of anesthesia2016

Systematic review of motor evoked potentials monitoring during thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm open repair surgery: a diagnostic meta-analysis.

Yuu Tanaka, Masahiko Kawaguchi, Yoshinori Noguchi, Kenji Yoshitani, Mikito Kawamata, Kenichi Masui, Takeo Nakayama, Yoshitugu Yamada

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of anesthesia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Intraoperative Neurophysiology Monitoring for Spinal Dysraphism.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2021
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Yuu TanakaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nara Medical University, 840 shijo-cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan. tanakayuu717@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3060-2144
Masahiko KawaguchiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Japan.
Yoshinori NoguchiDivision of General Internal Medicine, Daini Red Cross Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Kenji YoshitaniDepartment of Anesthesiology, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Osaka, Japan.
Mikito KawamataDepartment of Anesthesiology and Resuscitology, Shinshu University School of Medicine, Matsumoto, Japan.
Kenichi MasuiDepartment of Anesthesiology, National Defense Medical College, Saitama, Japan.
Takeo NakayamaDepartment of Health Informatics, School of Public Health, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Yoshitugu YamadaDepartment of Anesthesiology, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Nara Medical University · JPBunkyo University · JPJapanese Red Cross Nagoya Daini Hospital · JPKyoto University · JPNational Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center · JPNational Defense Medical College · JPShinshu University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring has been used to prevent neurological complications such as paraplegia in patients who underwent thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAA/TAAA) surgery. The object of this study was making a systematic review to survey the performance of MEP monitoring during TAA/TAAA open repair surgery. We searched electronic databases for relevant studies. We summarized the diagnostic data with summary sensitivity, summary specificity and forest plots of pooled sensitivity, and conducted sub-group analysis. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. We also surveyed the reporting rate of clinical key factors such as methods of anesthesia, surgery, and success rate of MEP. Nineteen studies met our criteria. The results of meta-analysis showed 89.1 % summary sensitivity (95 % confidence interval 47.9-98.6 %) and 99.3 % summary specificity (95 % confidence interval 96.1-99.9 %). Sub-group analysis of pooled sensitivity and specificity by all-or-none cut-off point were better than other cut-off points. The results of the QUADAS-2 were not good. The performance of MEP monitoring was good for detecting postoperative paraplegia in TAA/TAAA open repair surgery. The cut-off point of all-or-none may be the best, according to our review.

Indexed as

Aortic Aneurysm, AbdominalAortic Aneurysm, ThoracicEvoked Potentials, MotorHumansNervous System DiseasesParaplegiaSensitivity and SpecificityVascular Surgical ProceduresDiagnostic meta-analysisMotor evoked potential (MEP) monitoringSystematic reviewTAAA open repair

Identifiers

PMID27612851
OpenAlexW2516901668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.