ArticleBMJ open2024
Outcomes following surgical interventions for hypothalamic hamartomas: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcome of Surgery for Hypothalamic Hamartoma-Related Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.Neurology · 2024Pooled it
- MR-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy in the treatment of brain tumors and epilepsy.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHypothalamic hamartomas (HHs) are deep-seated congenital lesions that typically lead to pharmacoresistant epilepsy and a catastrophic encephalopathic syndrome characterised by severe neuropsychological impairment and decline in quality of life. A variety of surgical approaches and technologies are available for the treatment of HH-related pharmacoresistant epilepsy. There remains, however, a paucity of literature directly comparing their relative efficacy and safety. This protocol aims to facilitate a systematic review and meta-analysis that will characterise and compare the probability of seizure freedom and relevant postoperative complications across different surgical techniques performed for the treatment of HH-related pharmacoresistant epilepsy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was developed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Individual Participant Data guidelines. Three major databases, PubMed, Embase and Scopus, will be systematically searched from database inception and without language restrictions for relevant articles using our predefined search strategy. Title-abstract and full text screening using inclusion and exclusion criteria created a priori will be performed by two independent reviewers to identify eligible articles. Conflicts will be resolved via discussion with a third team member. Following data extraction of both study-level and individual patient data (IPD), a study-level and IPD meta-analysis will be performed. Study-level analysis will focus on assessing the degree of heterogeneity in the data and quantifying overall seizure outcomes for each surgical technique. The IPD analysis will use multivariable regression to determine perioperative predictors of seizure freedom and complications that can guide patient and technique selection. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This work will not require ethics approval as it will be solely based on previously published and available data. The results of this review will be shared via conference presentation and submission to peer-reviewed neurosurgical journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42022378876.
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.