ArticleNeurosurgical review2024
Predictive nomogram for hearing deficits after microvascular decompression treatment.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Letter to the editor: Predictive nomogram for hearing deficits after microvascular decompression treatment.Neurosurgical review · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We explored the impact of brainstem auditory evoked potentials monitoring, as well as anatomical characteristics, in relation to their influence on hearing deficits. A total of 851 patients diagnosed with idiopathic hemifacial spasm underwent microvascular decompression treatment were recruited in our study. A nomogram was developed based on the regression analysis. Nomogram performance was evaluated through receiver operating characteristic (ROC), decision curve analyses and calibration curve. The rate of positive wave V change was also higher in the hearing deficit group (71.8% vs no hearing deficit group, p < 0.001). Furthermore, greater retraction depth (0.78 ± 0.25 cm vs 0.55 ± 0.12 cm, p < 0.001), duration (74.43 ± 15.74 min vs 55.71 ± 7.01 min, p < 0.001) and retraction distance (4.38 ± 0.38 cm vs 4.17 ± 0.24 cm, p = 0.001) were evident in the hearing deficit patients. Multivariate logistic regression showed that positive wave V change (OR 5.43), greater retraction depth (OR 55.57) and longer retraction duration (OR 1.14) emerged as significant independent predictors of postoperative hearing deficit. The external validation cohort exhibited a favorable discrimination with an AUC of 0.88. The calibration curves further confirmed the reliability of the predicted outcome in relation to the observed outcome in the external validation cohort (p = 0.89). The decision curves demonstrated that the nomogram outperformed the All or None scheme when the threshold probability ranged from > 2% to < 60% in the external validation cohort. We constructed a nomogram, including wave V, retraction depth, and retraction duration, which can effectively predict the occurrence of hearing deficits and has good clinical applicability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39186095What 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.