ReviewEndocrinology and metabolism clinics of North America2022
Patient-Reported Outcomes in Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery.
Review in Endocrinology and metabolism clinics of North America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of the Persian version of anterior skull base questionnaire in patients undergoing endoscopic transnasal transsphenoidal surgery.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Clinical application of reserved gastric tube in neuroendoscopic endonasal surgery for pituitary tumor.World journal of clinical oncology · 2024Article
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
Abstract
The functional outcome, quality of life, and patient feedback related to a chosen treatment approach in skull base surgery have become a subject of interest and focused research in recent years. The current advances in endoscopic optical imaging technology and surgical precision have radically lowered the perioperative morbidity associated with skull base surgery. This has pushed toward a higher focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). It is now critical to ensure that the offered treatment plan and approach align with the patient's preferences and expectations, in addition to the surgeon's best clinical judgment and experience. PROs represent a view that reflects the patient's own thoughts and perspective on their condition and the management options, without input or interpretations from the surgeon. Having PRO data enables patients the opportunity to learn from the experiences and perspectives of other patients. This input empowers the patient to become an active participant in the decision-making process at different stages of their care. An in-depth PRO evaluation requires specific validated tools and scoring systems, namely the patient-reported outcomes measures (PROM) tools. In this review, we discuss the currently available skull-base-related PROs, the assessment tools used to capture them, and the future trends of this important topic that is in its infancy.
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.