Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37383457›Full record

ArticleBrain & spine2023

Towards a core outcome set for cranioplasty following traumatic brain injury and stroke 'A systematic review of reported outcomes'.

H Mee, A Castano Leon, F Anwar, K Grieve, N Owen, C Turner, G Whiting, E Viaroli, I Timofeev, A Helmy and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Brain & spine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

12 authors.

H MeeDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge & Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
A Castano LeonNeurosurgery Department, Research Institute i+12-CIBERESP, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain.
F AnwarDepartment of Rehabilitation, Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
K GrieveDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge & Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
N OwenDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge & Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
C TurnerDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge & Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
G WhitingDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge & Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
E ViaroliDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge & Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
I TimofeevDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge & Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
A HelmyDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge & Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
A KoliasDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge & Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
P HutchinsonDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge & Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: There is wide-ranging published literature around cranioplasty following traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke, but the heterogeneity of outcomes limits the ability for meta-analysis. Consensus on appropriate outcome measures has not been reached, and given the clinical and research interest, a core outcome set (COS) would be beneficial. Objectives: To collate outcomes currently reported across the cranioplasty literature which will subsequently be used in developing a cranioplasty COS. Methods: This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. All full-text English studies with more than ten patients (prospective) or more than 20 patients (retrospective) published after 1990 examining outcomes in CP were eligible for inclusion. Results: The review included 205 studies from which 202 verbatim outcomes were extracted, grouped into 52 domains, and categorised into one or more of the OMERACT 2.0 framework core area(s). The total numbers of studies that reported outcomes in the core areas are 192 (94%) pathophysiological manifestations/ 114 (56%) resource use/economic impact/ 94 (46%) life impact/mortality 20 (10%). In addition, there are 61 outcome measures used in the 205 studies across all domains. Conclusion: This study shows considerable heterogeneity in the types of outcomes used across the cranioplasty literature, demonstrating the importance and necessity of developing a COS to help standardise reporting across the literature.

Indexed as

Core outcome setCranioplastyOutcome domainsOutcome measuresStrokeTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID37383457
PMCPMC10293280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.