ArticlePloS one2025
The range and reach of qualitative research in neurosurgery: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following calls for more qualitative research in neurosurgery, this scoping review aimed to describe the range and reach of qualitative studies relevant to the field of neurosurgery and the patients and families affected by neurosurgical conditions. A systematic search was conducted in September 2024 across six databases: Medline via Ebsco; Embase via OVID; PsycINFO via Ebsco; Scopus; Web of Science Core Collection; and Global Health via Ebsco. Eligibility criteria were based on Population, Concept, and Context. The search identified 18,809 hits for screening with 812 included in the final analysis. Seven themes were identified from a content analysis of study aims: 1 Perspectives of living with a neurosurgical condition; 2 Family perspectives; 3 Perceptions of neurosurgery; 4 Perceptions of general healthcare care; 5 Decision making; 6 Advancing neurosurgery; and, 7 Understanding neurosurgical conditions. Traumatology was identified as the most researched sub-specialty (43.2%) yet few studies were led explicitly by a neurosurgeon (1.6%) or those with a neurosurgical affiliation (10.5%). Lead authors were predominantly from high income countries (93.7%), as were most multi-author teams (86.6%). There was a trend towards increasing publication over time; however, only 8.4% of papers were published in neurosurgical specific journals. The data set had an average Field Weighted Citation Impact of 0.96 and Field Weighted Views Impact of 1.11, 18.9% were cited in policy documents in 15 countries. This scoping review provides a comprehensive picture of the current qualitative research base in neurosurgery and suggests ways to improve the conduct and reporting of such studies in the future. Addressing these challenges is crucial if qualitative research is to advance the neurosurgical evidence base in a rigorous way.
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.