Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32651707›Full record

ReviewActa neurochirurgica2020

The IDEAL framework in neurosurgery: a bibliometric analysis.

Helen C U Ota, Brandon G Smith, Alexander Alamri, Faith C Robertson, Hani Marcus, Allison Hirst, Marike Broekman, Peter Hutchinson, Peter McCulloch, Angelos Kolias

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Acta neurochirurgica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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
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

10 authors.

Helen C U OtaSt Mary's Hospital, London, UK.
Brandon G SmithDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge & Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Alexander AlamriDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Royal London Hospital, London, UK.
Faith C RobertsonDepartment. of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Hani MarcusThe Victor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Allison HirstIDEAL Collaboration, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford and John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Marike BroekmanIDEAL Collaboration, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford and John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Peter HutchinsonDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge & Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Peter McCullochIDEAL Collaboration, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford and John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Angelos KoliasDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge & Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. angeloskolias@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3992-0587

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term study (IDEAL) framework was created to provide a structured way for assessing and evaluating novel surgical techniques and devices.

objectivesThe aim of this paper was to investigate the utilization of the IDEAL framework within neurosurgery, and to identify factors influencing implementation.

methodsA bibliometric analysis of the 7 key IDEAL papers on Scopus, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases (2009-2019) was performed. A second journal-specific search then identified additional papers citing the IDEAL framework. Publications identified were screened by two independent reviewers to select neurosurgery-specific articles.

resultsThe citation search identified 1336 articles. The journal search identified another 16 articles. Following deduplication and review, 51 relevant articles remained; 14 primary papers (27%) and 37 secondary papers (73%). Of the primary papers, 5 (36%) papers applied the IDEAL framework to their research correctly; two were aligned to the pre-IDEAL stage, one to the Idea and Development stages, and two to the Exploration stage. Of the secondary papers, 21 (57%) explicitly discussed the IDEAL framework. Eighteen (86%) of these were supportive of implementing the framework, while one was not, and two were neutral.

conclusionThe adoption of the IDEAL framework in neurosurgery has been slow, particularly for early-stage neurosurgical techniques and inventions. However, the largely positive reviews in secondary literature suggest potential for increased use that may be achieved with education and publicity.

Indexed as

NeurosurgeryBibliometricsHumansInventionsNeurosurgical ProceduresEvidenceIDEAL frameworkInnovationNeurosurgeryResearchSurgery

Identifiers

PMID32651707
PMCPMC7593304

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.