ArticleNeurologia medico-chirurgica2022
A Nationwide Questionnaire Survey on Awake Craniotomy in Japan.
Article in Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Language testing in awake craniotomy for brain tumor resection: A survey of current perioperative practice in the United Kingdom.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
- Role of modified enhanced recovery after surgery (mERAS) in awake craniotomy performed under monitored anesthesia care (MAC); a single center retrospective study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Article
- A Comparison of the Asleep-Awake Technique and Monitored Anesthesia Care During Awake Craniotomy: A 10-Year Analysis.Cureus · 2023Article
- Reply to the commentary. Risks and tasks of awake craniotomy under conscious sedation.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2023Article
- Cerebral Tufted Angioma with Gradually Developing Peritumoral Edema: A Case Report.NMC case report journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of awake craniotomies is increasing because of its beneficial features. However, not enough information is available regarding the current status of awake craniotomy in Japan. To evaluate the current status of awake craniotomy in institutes, a nationwide questionnaire survey was conducted. From June to August 2019, we conducted a questionnaire survey on awake craniotomy in the neurosurgery department of 45 institutes that perform awake craniotomies in Japan. Responses were obtained from 39 institutes (response rate, 86.7%). The main methods of awake craniotomy were almost the same in all institutes. Twenty-six institutes (66.7%) had fewer than 10 awake craniotomies (low-volume institutes) per year, and 13 high-volume institutes (33.3%) performed more than 10 awake craniotomies annually. Some institutes experienced a relatively high frequency of adverse events. In 11 institutes (28.2%), the frequency of intraoperative seizures was more than 10%. An intraoperative seizure frequency of 1%-9%, 10%-29%, and over 30% was identified in 12 (92%), 0 (0%), and 1 (8%) of the high-volume institutes, which was significantly less than in 16 (62%), 10 (38%), and 0 (0%) of the low-volume institutes (p = 0.0059). The routine usage of preoperative antiepileptic drugs was not different between them, but the old type was used more often in the low-volume institutes (p = 0.0022). Taken together, the annual number of awake craniotomies was less than 10 in over two-thirds of the institutes. Fewer intraoperative seizures were reported in the high-volume institutes, which tend not to preoperatively use the old type of antiepileptic drugs.
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.