SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring versus no monitoring in intradural extramedullary tumor surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of early postoperative neurological outcomes.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) in intradural extramedullary (IDEM) tumor surgery is uncertain. While IONM is standard in intramedullary and deformity procedures, its impact on neurological outcomes in IDEM resections has not been systematically evaluated. To assess whether IONM reduces early postoperative neurological morbidity in IDEM tumor surgery. We conducted a PROSPERO-registered systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD420251119538) in accordance with PRISMA 2020. Comparative studies of IDEM resections with versus without IONM were included. Outcomes were harmonized into a binary "new neurological deficit" at discharge. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I, and certainty of evidence with GRADE. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Four retrospective cohorts comprising 602 patients (306 with IONM, 296 without) were analyzed. In absolute terms, early postoperative neurological deficits occurred in 19/306 patients (6.2%) in the IONM group versus 45/296 patients (15.2%) in the non-IONM group. Pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in early postoperative neurological deficits with IONM compared to no IONM group (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20-0.75; p = 0.005; I² = 22%), corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 9.2% (NNT ≈ 11). Sensitivity analysis revealed dependence on certain large studies. Risk of bias was moderate-to-serious, and certainty of evidence was rated low. IONM use was associated with lower odds of early postoperative neurological deficits in IDEM tumor surgery, and the effect is based on low-certainty observational evidence. These findings are hypothesis-generating and support selective rather than universal use of IONM, particularly in higher-risk cases. Prospective multicenter studies with standardized outcomes, longer follow-up, and cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to define its optimal role.
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.