SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Reporting practices of baseline and surgical variables in spinal cavernous malformation surgery: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the consistency and completeness of baseline and surgical variable reporting in studies of spinal cord cavernous malformation (SCM) surgery, and to identify temporal and geographic trends in reporting practices. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration: CRD42025638978). PubMed and Embase were searched for English-language studies reporting surgical management of SCMs. Eligible studies were required to include ≥ 10 patients (prospective) or ≥ 20 patients (retrospective) and to report at least one baseline variable. Data on demographics, clinical presentation, radiological features, surgical details, and intraoperative adjuncts were extracted in duplicate and analysed descriptively. Twenty-five studies encompassing 1,633 patients met inclusion criteria. Most were single-centre (84%) with a mean sample size of 65.3 (range 20-279). All studies reported age, sex, and lesion location, whereas ethnicity (8%), comorbidities (0%), and body mass index (4%) were rarely documented. Functional grading was reported in 88% of studies, while haemorrhage (64%), lesion size (64%), and MRI sequence details (40%) were inconsistently captured. Neuromonitoring was the most frequently described intraoperative adjunct (68%), increasing from 25% of studies in the 2000s to 75% after 2010. Most publications originated from Asia (52%), followed by the Americas (28%) and Europe (20%). To our knowledge, this is the first review to systematically quantify the completeness of baseline and surgical variable reporting in SCM surgery and to map temporal and geographic patterns in those reporting practices. This review reveals pronounced heterogeneity in the reporting of variables in SCM surgery. The findings support the case for the development of consensus-derived reporting standards to improve data comparability, enable multicentre collaboration, and strengthen the evidence base for surgical management of this rare condition.
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.