SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Fostering evidence building for brainstem cavernous malformations: a critical appraisal of available evidence's quality through a systematic review and BSCM Reporting Guideline proposal.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brainstem cavernous malformations (BSCMs) are clusters of dilated, thin-walled, sinusoidal vessels prone to hemorrhage, often leading to life-threatening neurological deficits. Despite their rarity, prompt intervention is frequently required. Advances in diagnostics and treatment, including microsurgery and stereotactic radiosurgery, have improved management, yet no clear consensus exists due to considerable variability and lack of standardization across studies. Inadequate reporting further limits the generation of high-quality evidence. This study aims to evaluate publishing rigor and propose a reporting guideline for BSCMs based on observed gaps. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, identifying studies from the past ten years in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Studies were evaluated using EQUATOR-based criteria (STROBE, CONSORT) across seven domains: (1) patient baseline characteristics; (2) lesion characteristics; (3) definition of key concepts; (4) neurosurgeon/staff attributes; (5) anesthesia protocols; (6) procedural details; and (7) clinical outcomes and complications. Forty-two studies (3,566 patients) were included. Most consistently reported items were patient inclusion criteria (100%), radiosurgery procedural details (100%), surgical case identification (95.2%), and outcome definitions (93.3%). Less commonly reported were anesthesia protocols (2.4%), use of reporting guidelines (7.1%), surgeon experience (9.5%), patient comorbidities (11.9%), and definitions for radiosurgical lesion reduction (14.3%) or complication criteria (14.7%). Methodological and reporting shortcomings are prevalent in BSCM literature, undermining evidence synthesis. We propose a 58-item BSCM Reporting Guideline to address these deficiencies and improve study quality and comparability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41165869What 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.