SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Comparative diagnostic performance of motor-evoked potential alarm thresholds for predicting postoperative neurological decline in intradural extramedullary spinal tumor surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
Variability in motor evoked potential (MEP) alarm thresholds limits interpretation of intraoperative monitoring during intradural extramedullary (IDEM) tumor surgery. We aimed to compare predefined MEP thresholds for predicting postoperative neurological decline. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from inception to 9 November 2025 for studies evaluating MEP accuracy in predicting postoperative motor deficits. Studies assessing MEP within multimodal intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (mIONM) for predicting neurological deficits were also analyzed. MEP thresholds and diagnostic contingency data were extracted. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated for complete MEP amplitude loss and 50%-, 70%-, and 80%-level MEP amplitude decline categories. AUROC confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using study-level bootstrap resampling when feasible. Sixteen studies were included. In separate-threshold MEP analyses, 50%-level, 70%-level, and complete MEP amplitude loss criteria significantly predicted short-term motor deficits, whereas 50%- and 70%-level thresholds significantly predicted long-term motor deficits. The 50%-level threshold showed the most favorable short-term profile, with 94.1% sensitivity and 98.4% specificity. In sensitivity analysis, the pooled 70%/80%-level high-threshold group also showed significant diagnostic performance for short- and long-term motor deficit prediction. Within mIONM, the 50%-level threshold showed the most favorable point estimates, although formal testing was unavailable for short-term performance. Significant mIONM diagnostic performance was shown for complete MEP amplitude loss in short-term evaluation and for the 50%-level threshold in long-term evaluation. The 50%-level MEP amplitude decline threshold showed the most favorable profile for short-term motor deficit prediction in MEP-based analyses and favorable estimates within mIONM. Higher thresholds retained diagnostic utility. These findings should be interpreted cautiously because of differences in sample size, tumor location, histology, and outcome reporting between threshold groups.
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.