ReviewNeurosurgery practice2026
Corticobulbar Motor Evoked Potentials: A Systematic Review of Technical Variations.
Review in Neurosurgery practice, 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
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCorticobulbar motor evoked potentials (coMEPs) were introduced in 2005 as an alternative to direct stimulation and free running electromyography for continuous monitoring of the facial nerve during skull base surgery. The technique has been expanded for monitoring of multiple cranial nerves (CNs) and adapted across diverse pathologies. Nonetheless, broad adoption has lagged. This study aimed to understand the basis of this disparity by systematically mapping current practices and characterizing the variations in technical implementation and reporting of coMEPs.
methodsWe conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 adherent systematic review of all articles reporting coMEP neuromonitoring published through December 6, 2023. Multiple reviewers screened publications for inclusion. Data were extracted using a standardized template to enable quantitative and qualitative data synthesis. Aggregate data were analyzed to address incidence, reporting variability, and sensitivity/specificity of the method.
resultsWe identified 2711 unique cases using coMEPs, reported across 72 studies (2005-2023). Significant heterogeneity was observed in the technique of coMEPs, including stimulation montages and measurements of accuracy. Overall, 81.9% (59/72) of studies reported clinical outcomes, whereas the remainder were technically focused. coMEPs were often used alongside other neuromonitoring modalities (87.5% of studies, 63/72), but performance was directly compared only 25% of the time (18/72). The facial nerve was the most common single target analyzed (n = 41 publications), followed by the vagus (n = 9). Twenty-two percent of studies analyzed multiple CNs (n = 16). Less than 50% of facial nerve studies, and no vagal nerve study, reported sensitivity or specificity of coMEPs.
conclusioncoMEPs are an evolving technique in intraoperative neuromonitoring, powerful for their continuous monitoring of the entire motor pathways involving a CN. Comparison of the sensitivity and specificity of coMEPs to other modalities was limited by inconsistent reporting, highlighting the need for further investigation and prospective studies. Standardization of technique may facilitate broader adoption and acceptance of coMEPs.
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.