ArticleNeurosurgical review2022
Toward "bigger" data for neurosurgical anatomical research: a single centralized quantitative neurosurgical anatomy platform.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative Analysis of the Supraorbital, Transorbital Microscopic, and Transorbital Neuroendoscopic Approaches to the Anterior Skull Base and Paramedian Vasculature.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2025Article
- Toward an optimal cadaveric brain model for neurosurgical education: assessment of preservation, parenchyma, vascular injection, and imaging.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
- Quantitative Anatomical Studies in Neurosurgery: A Systematic and Critical Review of Research Methods.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative neurosurgical anatomy research aims to produce surgically applicable knowledge for improving operative decision-making using measurements from anatomical dissection and tools such as stereotaxis. Although such studies attempt to answer similar research questions, there is little standardization between them, offering minimal comparability. Modern technology has been incorporated into the research methodology, but many scientific principles are lacking, and results are not broadly applicable or suitable for evaluating big-data trends. Advances in information technology and the concept of big data permit more accessible and robust means of producing valuable, standardized, reliable research. A technology project, "Inchin," is presented to address these needs for neurosurgical anatomy research. This study applies the concept of big data to neurosurgical anatomy research, specifically in quantifying surgical metrics. A remote-hosted web application was developed for computing standard neurosurgical metrics and storing measurement data. An online portal (Inchin) was developed to produce a database to facilitate and promote neurosurgical anatomical research, applying optimal scientific methodology and big-data principles to this recent and evolving field of research. Individual data sets are not insignificant, but a collective of data sets present advantages. Large data sets allow confidence in data trends that are usually obscured in smaller numbers of samples. Inchin, a single centralized software platform, can act as a global database of results of neurosurgical anatomy studies. A calculation tool ensuring standardized peer-reviewed methodology, Inchin is applied to the analysis of neurosurgical metrics and may promote efficient study collaboration within and among neurosurgical laboratories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36544017What 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.