Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37148399›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2023

Can we do better at measuring patient-reported outcomes after cranioplasty? A systematic review.

Taborah Z Zaramo, Ian Zelko, Dashaun Ragland, Jude Tunyi, Manraj N Kaur, Nojan Bajestani, Clara N Lee, Kevin C Chung, Kerry-Ann S Mitchell

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Taborah Z ZaramoDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Ian ZelkoDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Dashaun RaglandDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Jude TunyiDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Manraj N KaurDepartment of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Nojan BajestaniDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Clara N LeeDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Kevin C ChungSection of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Kerry-Ann S MitchellDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA. kerry-ann.mitchell@osumc.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2996-4837
The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USCleveland Clinic · USUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measuring quality of life (QOL) after cranioplasty is increasingly evident as a necessary component of patient-centered care. For data to be useful in clinical decision-making and approval of new therapies, studies must utilize valid and reliable instruments. Our objective was to critically appraise studies evaluating QOL in adult cranioplasty patients and determine validity and relevance of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used. Electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were used to identify PROMs measuring QOL in adult patients with cranioplasty. The methodological approach, cranioplasty outcomes, and domains measured by the PROMs were extracted and summarized descriptively. A content analysis of the identified PROMs was completed to identify the concepts measured. From 2236 articles identified, 17 articles containing eight QOL PROMs met the inclusion criteria. None of the PROMs was specifically validated or developed for adults undergoing cranioplasty. The QOL domains included physical health, psychological health, social health, and general QOL. These four domains encompassed 216 total items among the PROMs. Appearance was only assessed in two PROMs. To our knowledge, there are currently no validated PROMs that comprehensively measure appearance, facial function, and adverse effects in adults undergoing cranioplasty. There is an urgent need to develop PROMs to measure QOL outcomes rigorously and comprehensively in this patient population to inform clinical care, research, and quality improvement initiatives. Findings from this systematic review will be used to derive an outcome instrument containing important concepts related to QOL in patients who undergo cranioplasty.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresPlastic Surgery ProceduresAdultClinical Decision-MakingDatabases, FactualHumansMental HealthMethylmethacrylateQuality of LifeMethylmethacrylateCranioplastyDecompressive craniectomyHealth-related quality of lifeNeuroplastic surgeryPatient-reported outcome measureQuality of lifeStrokeTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID37148399
PMCPMC10163856
OpenAlexW4372342193

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.