ArticleMedicine international
Quality improvement in neurosurgery: A systematic review.
Article in Medicine international. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quality improvement (QI) is crucial for advancing patient care and safety in surgical practices. Despite the presence of numerous systematic reviews on various types of surgeries, no current QI systematic review for neurosurgery is available, at least to the best of our knowledge. The present study thus aimed to explore existing QI frameworks, interventions and outcome measures, which are used to enhance patient care and efficiency in neurosurgery. For this purpose, a systematic review was conducted by identifying 75 articles using key words, such as 'Quality', 'Control', 'Improvement', 'Neurosurgical' and 'Neurosurgery' across various databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Wiley, ScienceDirect and Microsoft Academic. Each article was assessed based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, without a time limit for selection. The analysis of the 75 publications revealed an uneven distribution across neurosurgical fields: Adult neurosurgery (70.5%), spine surgery (22.5%), pediatric neurosurgery (4%) and neuro-oncology (3%). This pattern was reflected in the patient distribution (n=621,293), with 87.07% involved in spine surgery QI initiatives. Cranial-only and combined cranial and spinal studies accounted for only 0.21% of patients. QI interventions included mainly new protocols (18.67%), ERAS (17.33%), data analysis (16%), modified checklists (14.67%) and new sterilization devices (13.3%). By contrast, only a limited number of articles addressed the effectiveness of new technology, prediction models, incident reporting and staff education. On the whole, the QI studies enhanced neurosurgical care, focusing mainly on adult neurosurgery and targeting specifically spinal cases. The main interventions included new protocols, ERAS, data analysis and checklists. Further research is required to address QI initiatives in cranial surgery and evaluate the effectiveness of less commonly used methods, such as new technologies and predictive models.
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.