Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39441388›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024

Quality indicators in cranial neurosurgery: current insights and critical evaluation - a systematic review.

Stephanie Schipmann, Michael Schwake, Terje Sundstrøm, Markus Holling, Walter Stummer

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

5 authors.

Stephanie SchipmannDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany. stesch@helse-bergen.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9971-2256
Michael SchwakeDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Terje SundstrømDepartment of Neurosurgery, Haukeland University Hospital Bergen, Jonas Lies vei 71, Bergen, 5021, Norway.
Markus HollingDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Walter StummerDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent decades, there has been increasing interest in measuring the quality of care across all medical fields, including neurosurgery. This interest aims not only to optimize care but also to reduce healthcare costs. For this purpose, different quality indicators (QIs) have been developed. We performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines aiming at identifying studies that critically evaluate QIs applied in cranial neurosurgery. A total of 34 studies, suggesting 22 indicators, were identified. The most discussed indicator was the 30-day readmission rate, followed by the 30-day reoperation rate. The majority of QIs are influenced by baseline and underlying patient characteristics, reflecting the severity of the patient`s underlying disease, rather than adherence to best available evidence of treatment. Therefore, it is crucial to implement adequate risk adjustment strategies when applying QIs to compensate for differences in patient complexity and to ensure that departments that are treating high-risk patients do not have worse results. The review revealed several limitations of the currently used quality indicators. Most suggested indicators are attractive from a payer point of view, easy to measure and therefore convenient for reimbursement purposes. However, from a clinician's point of view, most indicators were considered poor performance markers as they do not correlate with meaningful outcome and do not reflect treatment quality. In addition, there is a lack of disease- and neurosurgery specific indicators. This highlights the need for clinicians to actively participate in developing more clinically relevant QIs tailored to neurosurgical practice.

Indexed as

Neurosurgical ProceduresQuality Indicators, Health CareHumansNeurosurgeryCraniotomyMortalityNeurosurgeryQuality indicatorsReadmission rateReoperation rate

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.