Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30314961›Full record

ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2018

Importance and Presence of High-Quality Evidence for Clinical Decisions in Neurosurgery: International Survey of Neurosurgeons.

Jill Martens, Guido de Jong, Maroeska Rovers, Gert Westert, Ronald Bartels

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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.

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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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 · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

5 authors.

Jill Martens *Neurosurgical Center Nijmegen, Department of Neurosurgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0791-6949
Guido de Jong *Neurosurgical Center Nijmegen, Department of Neurosurgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8014-0622
Maroeska Rovers *Neurosurgical Center Nijmegen, Department of Neurosurgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3095-170X
Gert Westert *Neurosurgical Center Nijmegen, Department of Neurosurgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3744-8207
Ronald Bartels *Neurosurgical Center Nijmegen, Department of Neurosurgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8638-4660

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

evidence-based medicinelevels of evidenceneurosurgery

Identifiers

PMID30314961
PMCPMC6231869

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.