SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Intraoperative auditory monitoring in vestibular schwannoma surgery: Diagnostic accuracy and interventional effectiveness - 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hearing preservation is a key goal of vestibular schwannoma (VS) microsurgery. Intraoperative auditory monitoring spans far-field auditory brainstem responses (ABR)/brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEP) and near-field cochlear nerve action potentials (CNAP)/dorsal cochlear nucleus action potentials (DNAP). Prior reports often conflate diagnostic accuracy of thresholds with interventional effectiveness. We separated these domains to deliver decision-relevant synthesis. PRISMA-guided systematic review of PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Embase. Eligible VS studies used ABR/BAEP, CNAP, or DNAP and reported (1) diagnostic performance of prespecified intraoperative thresholds versus postoperative hearing, or (2) comparative effectiveness of monitoring-guided surgery. Primary clinical outcome: long-term serviceable hearing (GR I–II or AAO-HNS A–B). ROBINS-I for effectiveness and QUADAS-2 for diagnostic studies were used for risk of bias assessment. Random-effects models were used for synthesis. The study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD420251181366) before its start. We included 34 studies yielding 1,297 patients with operated VS (27 diagnostic/threshold; 7 comparative-effectiveness). The two nonrandomized cohorts comparing any intraoperative auditory monitoring versus none were directionally favorable but imprecise (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.54–3.04 and RR 2.50, 0.83–7.49). For far-field ABR/BAEP, a whole-cohort ROC threshold (interaural wave V latency difference < 1.12 ms) predicted early serviceable hearing with sensitivity 0.863, specificity 0.778. A looser “any deterioration” rule behaved as a sensitive sentinel for early loss (sensitivity 1.00, specificity 0.33). A standardized BAEP amplitude criterion (post-resection STIAS–Am-V ≥ 0.05 µV) improved rule-in performance (sensitivity 0.789, specificity 0.920). For near-field CNAP, thresholds with extractable denominators showed balanced discrimination for early outcomes (> 80% drop: sensitivity 0.889, specificity 0.667; disappearance: sensitivity 0.529, specificity 0.923), while end-of-case N1 presence ruled out immediate deafness in a small series (sensitivity 1.00, specificity 0.67). Head-to-head signals suggested potential gains from chirp-optimized ABR versus click-ABR and greater decisional value of direct CNAP over transtympanic ECochG when feasible; formal, standardized evaluations are needed to confirm these patterns. Evidence supports routine intraoperative auditory monitoring for hearing-preservation VS surgery, with ABR as a widely deployable early-warning tool and CNAP/DNAP offering more specific, faster adjudication where attainable. Certainty is limited by nonrandomized designs, heterogeneous thresholds/windows, and incomplete 2 × 2 data; standardized threshold-to-action protocols and multicenter studies are needed.
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.