Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35372781›Full record

ReviewFuture healthcare journal2022

Digital tools in neurosurgical pathways: considerations for the future.

Alexander J Deighton, Karanjot Chhatwal, Debashish Das

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Future healthcare journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Making 2022 a learning and reflective year.Future healthcare journal · 2022
    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

3 authors.

Alexander J DeightonBarts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
Karanjot ChhatwalImperial College London, London, UK.
Debashish DasWhipps Cross University Hospital, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With aspects of neurosurgery becoming increasingly digitised, there is a need to understand both the prevalence and impact of digital tools on clinical and organisational outcomes. Consequently, we sought to evaluate evidence of the use of digital tools in neurosurgical settings. We systematically searched three public databases for relevant articles: 283 articles were screened using inclusion/exclusion criteria, with 26 selected for further analysis. Many studies reported on the use of simulation, smartphones, telemedicine and robotics in neurosurgical pathways from education through to postoperative care. Though generally beneficial for both patient and organisational outcomes, a number of considerations were highlighted. Many referred to protection of patient data, cost and requirements to ensure socially disadvantaged groups are not further excluded by the move to digital services. Fortunately, with further innovation, many of these limitations look set to dissipate over coming years, paving the way for a more streamlined neurosurgical pathway.

Indexed as

communicationdatadigital healthneurosurgerytelehealth

Identifiers

PMID35372781
PMCPMC8966794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.