ArticleJAMA network open2024
Awake Craniotomy Program Implementation.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Right insular glioma in right-handed patient with bilateral language dominance: a multimodal guided awake craniotomy. Illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of awake craniotomy versus general anesthesia for glioma resection: A systematic review.Surgical neurology international · 2026Review
- The Potential Advantages of Remimazolam for Awakening in Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis of Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Recent Developments in Glioblastoma-On-A-Chip for Advanced Drug Screening Applications.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025Review
- Direct real-time intra-operative imaging of human brain tumour vessels using intravital microscopy.Clinical and translational medicine · 2024Article
- Application of a Standardized Treatment Paradigm as a Strategy to Achieve Optimal Onco-Functional Balance in Glioma Surgery.Brain tumor research and treatment · 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
18 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Implementing multidisciplinary teams for treatment of complex brain tumors needing awake craniotomies is associated with significant costs. To date, there is a paucity of analysis on the cost utility of introducing advanced multidisciplinary standardized teams to enable awake craniotomies. Objective: To assess the cost utility of introducing a standardized program of awake craniotomies. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective economic evaluation was conducted at Mayo Clinic Florida. All patients with single, unilateral lesions who underwent elective awake craniotomies between January 2016 and December 2021 were considered eligible for inclusion. The economic perspective of the health care institution and a time horizon of 1 year were considered. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to May 2023. Exposure: Treatment with an awake craniotomy before standardization (2016-2018) compared with treatment with awake craniotomy after standardization (2018-2021). Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient demographics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes, including length of stay, intensive care (ICU) admission, extent of resection, readmission rates, and 1-year mortality were compared between patients undergoing surgery before and after standardization. Direct medical costs were estimated from Medicare reimbursement rates for all billed procedures. A cost-utility analysis was performed considering differences in direct medical costs and in 1-year mortality within the periods before and after standardization of procedures. Uncertainty was explored in probability sensitivity analysis. Results: A total of 164 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.9 [15.7] years; 98 [60%] male patients) were included in the study. Of those, 56 underwent surgery before and 108 after implementation of procedure standardization. Procedure standardization was associated with reductions in length of stay from a mean (SD) of 3.34 (1.79) to 2.46 (1.61) days (difference, 0.88 days; 95% CI, 0.33-1.42 days; P = .002), length of stay in ICU from a mean (SD) of 1.32 (0.69) to 0.99 (0.90) nights (difference, 0.33 nights; 95% CI, 0.06-0.60 nights; P = .02), 30-day readmission rate from 14% (8 patients) in the prestandardization cohort to 5% (5 patients) (difference, 9%; 95% CI, 19.6%-0.3%; P = .03), while extent of resection and intraoperative complication rates were similar between both cohorts. The standardized protocol was associated with mean (SD) savings of $7088.80 ($12 389.50) and decreases in 1-year mortality (dominant intervention). This protocol was found to be cost saving in 75.5% of all simulations in probability sensitivity analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation of standardization of awake craniotomy, there was a generalized reduction in length of stay, ICU admission time, and direct medical costs with implementation of an optimized protocol. This was achieved without compromising patient outcomes and with similar extent of resection, complication rates, and reduced readmission rates.
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.