Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37119320›Full record

ArticleActa neurochirurgica2023

Routine ICU admission after brain tumor surgery: retrospective validation and critical appraisal of two prediction scores.

Jan-Oliver Neumann, Stephanie Schmidt, Amin Nohman, Martin Jakobs, Andreas Unterberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2023. 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. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Jan-Oliver Neumann *Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Jan-Oliver.Neumann@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID 0000-0002-0705-471X
Stephanie Schmidt *Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Amin NohmanDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin JakobsDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Andreas UnterbergDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRoutine admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) following brain tumor surgery has been a common practice for many years. Although this practice has been challenged by many authors, it has still not changed widely, mainly due to the lack of reliable data for preoperative risk assessment. Motivated by this dilemma, risk prediction scores for postoperative complications following brain tumor surgery have been developed recently. In order to improve the ICU admission policy at our institution, we assessed the applicability, performance, and safety of the two most appropriate risk prediction scores.

methodsOne thousand consecutive adult patients undergoing elective brain tumor resection within 19 months were included. Patients with craniotomy for other causes, i.e., cerebral aneurysms and microvascular decompression, were excluded. The decision for postoperative ICU-surveillance was made by joint judgment of the operating surgeon and the anesthesiologist. All data and features relevant to the scores were extracted from clinical records and subsequent ICU or neurosurgical floor documentation was inspected for any postoperative adverse events requiring ICU admission. The CranioScore derived by Cinotti et al. (Anesthesiology 129(6):1111-20, 5) and the risk assessment score of Munari et al. (Acta Neurochir (Wien) 164(3):635-641, 15) were calculated and prognostic performance was evaluated by ROC analysis.

resultsIn our cohort, both scores showed only a weak prognostic performance: the CranioScore reached a ROC-AUC of 0.65, while Munari et al.'s score achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.67. When applying the recommended decision thresholds for ICU admission, 64% resp. 68% of patients would be classified as in need of ICU surveillance, and the negative predictive value (NPV) would be 91% for both scores. Lowering the thresholds in order to increase patient safety, i.e., 95% NPV, would lead to ICU admission rates of over 85%.

conclusionPerformance of both scores was limited in our cohort. In practice, neither would achieve a significant reduction in ICU admission rates, whereas the number of patients suffering complications at the neurosurgical ward would increase. In future, better risk assessment measures are needed.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsHospitalizationAdultHumansIntensive Care UnitsPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesAdverse effectsCraniotomyIntensive care unitsPatient admissionRisk factors

Identifiers

PMID37119320
PMCPMC10147995

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.