Smith, Timothy R.

Abstract Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature have surged in popularity over the last decade. It is our concern that, without a renewed effort to critically interpret and appraise these studies as high or low quality, we run the risk of the quality and value of evidence-based medicine in neurosurgery being misinterpreted. Correspondingly, we have outlined 4 major domains to target in interpreting neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on the lessons learned by a collaboration of clinicians and academics summarized as 4 pearls. The domains of (1) heterogeneity, (2) modeling, (3) certainty, and (4) bias in neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified as aspects in which the authors’ approaches have changed over time to improve robustness and transparency. Examples of how and why these pearls were adapted were provided in areas of cranial neuralgia, spine, pediatric, and neuro-oncology to demonstrate how neurosurgical readers and writers may improve their interpretation of these domains. The incorporation of these pearls into practice will empower neurosurgical academics to effectively interpret systematic reviews and meta-analyses, enhancing the quality of our evidence-based medicine literature while maintaining a critical focus on the needs of the individual patients in neurosurgery.

Background Endoscopic resection (ER) for uncommon sinonasal malignancies (SNMs) has been reported to confer superior surgical outcomes compared to open resection (OR) based on indirect comparisons of limited evidence. Objective The aim of this study was to pool all direct comparative studies in the literature to validate this potential superior association. Methods Systematic searches of 7 electronic databases from their inception to April 2019 were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. There were 1001 articles identified for screening. Outcomes of interest were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) and mean difference (MD) and analyzed using a random-effects model. Results There were 10 studies included in this meta-analysis, with 900 SNM patients in total where ER and OR were utilized in 399 (44%) and 501 (56%) cases, respectively. Compared to OR, random-effects (RE) modeling indicated ER resulted in statistically comparable complications (RR = 0.68; P-effect = .12) and recurrence (RR = 0.84; P-effect = .35). ER was associated with significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) compared to OR (MD = −2.9 days; P-effect <.01). Conclusions The use of ER to manage SNM was associated with significantly favorable reduction in LOS compared to OR. However, with respect to other surgical outcomes and recurrence, the current literature does not indicate either ER or OR as statistically superior. Therefore, until greater validation of these associations can be proven, expectations that ER for SNMs confers superior surgical outcomes compared to OR should be tempered.

Abstract BACKGROUND Developmental incentives are fundamental to surgical progress, yet financial and professional incentives inherently create conflicts of interest (COI). Understanding how to manage COI held by neurosurgeons, industry, hospitals, and journal editors, without thwarting progress and innovation is critical. OBJECTIVE To present an overview of COI associated with innovation in neurosurgery, and review ways to manage these in an ethically sound manner. METHODS A review of the literature was performed to assess conflicts of interest that affect neurosurgical innovation, and review ways to manage COI of various parties while adhering to ethical standards. RESULTS COI are inherent to collaboration and innovation, and are therefore an unavoidable component of neurosurgery. The lack of a clear distinction between clinical practice and innovation, ability to use devices off-label, and unstandardized disclosure requirements create inconsistencies in the way that conflicts of interest are handled. Additionally, lack of requirements to compare innovation to the standard of care and inherent bias that affects study design and interpretation can have profound effects on the medical literature. Conflicts of interest can have both direct and downstream effects on neurosurgical practice, and it is possible to manage them while improving the quality of research and innovation. CONCLUSION Conflicts of interest are inherent to surgical innovation, and can be handled in an ethically sound manner. Neurosurgeons, device companies, hospitals, and medical journals can take steps to proactively confront bias and ensure patient autonomy and safety. These steps can preserve public trust and ultimately improve evidence-based neurosurgical practice.