Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39821366›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025

Heterogeneity in definitions of surgical site infection after cranial surgery limits the validity of research findings in neurosurgery: a systematic review.

Nika Majidi, Avanthika Sivakumar, Antonia Vogt, Sruthi Ranganathan, Keyoumars Ashkan, Stephen J Price, Keng Siang Lee

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. 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

7 authors.

Nika Majidi *Department of Neurosurgery, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
Avanthika Sivakumar *School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Antonia Vogt *Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Sruthi RanganathanDepartment of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Keyoumars AshkanDepartment of Neurosurgery, King's College Hospital, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5635-7434
Stephen J PriceDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Keng Siang LeeDepartment of Neurosurgery, King's College Hospital, London, UK. mrkengsianglee@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2308-0579

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgical site infections after cranial surgery (SSI-CRAN) are serious adverse events considering the vicinity of the wound to the central nervous system. Variability in outcome definitions can hinder the ability to produce reliable evidence. This systematic review aimed to investigate whether there is variation in SSI-CRAN definitions across studies and its impact on the identification of effective treatments for patients after cranial surgery. Systematic searches of Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central were undertaken. Studies that reported data about SSI-CRAN were included. Our final dataset consisted of 519 studies reporting SSI-CRAN. Subspecialties included were neuro-oncology (n = 103,19.8%), neurotrauma (n = 92,17.7%), paediatric neurosurgery (n = 56,10.8%), functional neurosurgery (n = 52,10.0%), neurovascular (n = 38,7.3%), skull base (n = 37,7.1%), cerebrospinal fluid dynamics (n = 11,2.1%), and general neurosurgical cases (n = 149,28.7%). A hundred and sixty-nine (32.6%) studies reported SSI-CRAN definitions. Twenty-six different indicators for SSI-CRAN were used, with a median of nine (range: one to 16) utilised per study. Only 21 (4.0%) studies considered the varying definitions of SSI-CRAN in their conclusions, indicating that a lack of consistent definitions across studies impacted the ability to draw clear conclusions. There are discrepancies in the definition of SSI-CRAN across the literature. This heterogeneity has hindered the ability to draw conclusions about the effects of interventions, with only 4.0% of authors accounting for this in their findings. It is important to be cautious when reviewing studies that report SSI-CRAN outcomes without acknowledging this heterogeneity, as the validity of their reported evidence may be limited. The implementation of a new core indicator set could support uniform reporting of indicators along with regulation of reported SSI-CRAN outcomes, thereby facilitating more effective evidence synthesis.

Indexed as

Neurosurgical ProceduresSurgical Wound InfectionHumansCraniotomyNeuro-oncologyNeurosurgerySkull baseSurgical site infectionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39821366
PMCPMC11739257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.