ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2018
Importance and Presence of High-Quality Evidence for Clinical Decisions in Neurosurgery: International Survey of Neurosurgeons.
Article in Interactive journal of medical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variations across Europe in National Guidelines and Clinical Practice Regarding Screening of Cognitive and Emotional Consequences after Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Imaging Modalities in Craniosynostosis: A Systematic Review and Proposal of the ARCANA Protocol for Multimodal Radiation-Free Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Exploring the scope and output of neurosurgery in Nepal: analysis of workforce development, challenges, and opportunities to neurosurgical care.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the cerebrovascular space: essential domains for readers.Neurosurgical review · 2024Review
- Manual Instruments as an Alternative to Drilling for Bony Exposure in Skull Base Surgery: Concept and Technique.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2024Review
- Patterns of prophylactic anticonvulsant use in spontaneous intracerebral and subarachnoid hemorrhage: results of a practitioner survey.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2022Article
- The most recommended neuroanatomy resources for neurosurgeons: an international survey.Surgical neurology international · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 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.
objectiveThe aim was to evaluate the evidence available within neurosurgery and its value within clinical practice according to neurosurgeons.
methodsA Web-based survey was sent to 2552 neurosurgeons, who were members of the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies.
resultsThe 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).
conclusionsAccording 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.