Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28780715›Full record

SynthesisActa neurochirurgica2017

Innovation in neurosurgery: less than IDEAL? A systematic review.

I S Muskens, S J H Diederen, J T Senders, A H Zamanipoor Najafabadi, W R van Furth, A M May, T R Smith, A L Bredenoord, M L D Broekman

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta neurochirurgica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Surgeon's Eyes on the Relevant Surgical Target.Acta neurochirurgica. Supplement · 2023
    Article
  5. A standardised protocol for neuro-endoscopic lavage for post-haemorrhagic ventricular dilatation: A Delphi consensus approach.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

I S MuskensDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, HP G03.124, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
S J H DiederenDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, HP G03.124, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J T SendersDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, HP G03.124, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A H Zamanipoor NajafabadiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
W R van FurthDepartment of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
A M MayDepartment of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
T R SmithCushing Neurosurgery Outcomes Center (CNOC), Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
A L BredenoordDepartment of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M L D BroekmanDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, HP G03.124, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. M.L.D.Broekman-4@umcutrecht.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical innovation is different from the introduction of novel pharmaceuticals. To help address this, in 2009 the IDEAL Collaboration (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up) introduced the five-stage framework for surgical innovation. To evaluate the framework feasibility for novel neurosurgical procedure introduction, two innovative surgical procedures were examined: the endoscopic endonasal approach for skull base meningiomas (EEMS) and the WovenEndobridge (WEB device) for endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms.

methodsThe published literature on EEMS and WEB devices was systematically reviewed. Identified studies were classified according to the IDEAL framework stage. Next, studies were evaluated for possible categorization according to the IDEAL framework.

resultsFive hundred seventy-six papers describing EEMS were identified of which 26 papers were included. No prospective studies were identified, and no studies reported on ethical approval or patient informed consent for the innovative procedure. Therefore, no clinical studies could be categorized according to the IDEAL Framework. For WEB devices, 6229 articles were screened of which 21 were included. In contrast to EEMS, two studies were categorized as 2a and two as 2b.

conclusionThe results of this systematic review demonstrate that both EEMS and WEB devices were not introduced according to the (later developed in the case of EEMS) IDEAL framework. Elements of the framework such as informed consent, ethical approval, and rigorous outcomes reporting are important and could serve to improve the quality of neurosurgical research. Alternative study designs and the use of big data could be useful modifications of the IDEAL framework for innovation in neurosurgery.

Indexed as

HumansInformed ConsentIntracranial AneurysmMeningiomaNeurosurgical ProceduresProspective StudiesSkull Base NeoplasmsTherapies, InvestigationalTreatment OutcomeEthicsIDEAL frameworkInnovationIntracranial aneurysmMeningiomaNeurosurgeryWEB device

Identifiers

PMID28780715
PMCPMC5590028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.