Appraisal of the Quality of Neurosurgery Clinical Practice Guidelines

Guidelines in Neurosurgery: a critical appraisal

BACKGROUND

The process of grading and stratifying evidence in the extensive literature on neurosurgical guidelines has evolved significantly, ranging from high-quality standards to suggested options. However, the methodology for guideline development has become increasingly complex, leading to challenges in their application across various neurosurgical specialties and settings. This mini review aims to explore the practical implications of published suggestions for managing neurosurgical patients.

METHODS

A critical and focused collection of published literature concerning guidelines in different neurosurgical topics, from Pubmed and other sources formed the basis of this non-systematic narrative review. Only guidelines produced by neurosurgeons in the era of evidence based medicine (after 1996) were included.

RESULTS

Neurosurgical guidelines often rely on a limited number of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Class I evidence, particularly in surgical and emergency contexts where randomization of patient treatments may conflict with established clinical practices. Challenges also include the timely update of guidelines, which sometimes lags behind rapid shifts in evidence, and varying methodologies in guideline production that can result in divergent recommendations. Geographical disparities in disease burden and literature production further influence guideline applicability, suggesting a need for greater inclusion of authors from Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) to enhance realism and global relevance. Consensus conferences and expert reviews may serve as viable alternatives to address these challenges.

CONCLUSION

While Evidence-Based Medicine remains pivotal, critical appraisal and practical application of guidelines must consider these complexities to optimize patient care and outcomes.

Challenges and limitations in meta-analyses of complications in neurosurgery: Systematic review with proposed approach and checklist to mitigate errors and improve the assessment of the real-world experience

Meta-analyses are highly valued in medical science, yet accurately reporting complications in neurosurgical studies remains challenging. Examples include inconsistencies in defining and classifying complications and variations in reporting methods. This lack of reproducibility and comparability, along with other issues related to biases, hinders the ability of meta-analyses to yield significant advancements. This systematic review investigated the challenges and limitations inherent in meta-analyses of complications in neurosurgery. Based on the identified challenges and our group's experience, we developed a practical checklist to mitigate and avoid common errors in meta-analyses of complications in neurosurgery.We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies addressing challenges in assessing complications in neurosurgery. The main findings were qualitatively synthesized to identify common challenges and limitations. The proposed checklist was developed using a modified Delphi technique. Eleven studies were included, uncovering heterogeneity and a lack of standardization regarding the classification of complications in neurosurgery across various authors and institutions. They suggested solutions such as implementing a more uniform classification system. Additionally, the NeuroComp Meta-Analysis Checklist was developed, comprising 23 items divided into 5 domains, with a practical approach and suggestions on how to deal with the challenges when meta-analyzing.We identified numerous challenges and concerns when assessing complications in the neurosurgical field. The NeuroComp Meta-Analysis Checklist incorporated methodologies and approaches we utilized in several previously published meta-analyses. While we acknowledge that the proposal cannot solve all the issues involved in comparing and meta-analyzing complications in neurosurgery, it has the potential to enhance the informativeness of future meta-analyses and help authors mitigate common errors. Ultimately, this tool has the potential to contribute to the advancement of accumulating real-world evidence in neurosurgical science.

The overall quality of evidence of recommendations surrounding nutrition and diet in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Recently, there has been an increased focus on the role nutrition and diet play in maintaining health in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to assess the overall quality, strength, and transparency of conflicts among guidelines on nutrition/diet in IBD.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on multiple databases from inception until January 1, 2021, to identify guidelines pertaining to nutrition or diet in IBD. All guidelines were reviewed for disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI) and funding, recommendation quality and strength, external document review, patient representation, and plans for update-as per Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards. In addition, recommendations and their quality were compared between guidelines/societies.​ RESULTS: Seventeen distinct societies and a total of 228 recommendations were included. Not all guidelines provided recommendations on key aspects of diet-such as the role of supplements or the appropriate micro/macro nutrition in IBD. Fifty-nine percent of guidelines reported on COI, 24% underwent external review, and 41% included patient representation. 18.4%, 25.9%, and 55.7% of recommendations were based on high-, moderate-, and low-quality evidence, respectively. 10.5%, 24.6%, and 64.9% of recommendations were strong, weak/conditional, and did not provide a strength, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence (p = 0.12) and strong recommendations (p = 0.83) did not significantly differ across societies.

CONCLUSIONS

Many guidelines do not provide recommendations on key aspects of diet/nutrition in IBD. As over 50% of recommendations are based on low-quality evidence, further studies on nutrition/diet in IBD are warranted to improve the overall quality of evidence.

Educating the Next Generation of Global Neurosurgeons: Competencies, Skills, and Resources for Medical Students Interested in Global Neurosurgery

BACKGROUND

Global neurosurgery operates at the intersection of neurosurgery and public health. Although most global neurosurgery initiatives have targeted neurosurgeons and trainees, medical students represent the future of global neurosurgery.

METHODS

A narrative review of the literature regarding research methodology, education, economics, health policy, health advocacy, relevant to global neurosurgery was conducted.

RESULTS

We summarize pearls that all medical students interested in global neurosurgery should know.

DISCUSSION

To become effective agents of change within global neurosurgery, medical students must master competencies of motivation, organization, collaborativeness, dependability, flexibility, resilience, creative problem-solving, ethical thinking, cultural humility, and global awareness and gain knowledge and skills regarding research, education, policy making, and advocacy. Discussions with neurosurgeons and trainees, neurosurgery interest groups, conferences, university global neurosurgery initiatives, and student organizations represent opportunities for learning and becoming involved in global neurosurgery.

Beyond guidelines: analysis of current practice patterns of AANS/CNS tumor neurosurgeons

INTRODUCTION

Evidence-based medicine guidelines are increasingly published and sanctioned by organized neurosurgery. However, implementation, interpretation, and use of clinical guidelines may vary substantially on a regional, national and international basis. Survey research can help bridge the gap by providing a snapshot of neurosurgeon attitudes, knowledge, and practices. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS) Section on Tumors formed a Survey Committee to formalize the process by which surveys are submitted and reviewed before distribution to our membership. The goal of this committee is to provide peer-review so that collected information will be scientifically robust and useful to the neurosurgical community.

METHODS

Surveys submitted to the AANS/CNS tumor section between 2015 and 2019 were reviewed and metrics such as response rate and publication status assessed.

RESULTS

Six surveys were submitted to the Survey Committee of the AANS/CNS section on tumors between 2015 and 2019. Four have been circulated to section members, of which three have been published. Response rate has averaged 19% (range 16-23%), a majority of respondents (mean 70%) practice in academic settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The AANS/CNS Section on Tumors Survey Committee has and continues to help promote and improve the practice of surveying our community to answer important questions that can advance future training, research, and practice. There remains significant room for improvement in response rates, but ongoing tumor section efforts to increase member engagement will likely improve these numbers.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Neurosurgical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

In the last 20 yr, the rate of neurosurgical guideline publication has increased. However, despite the higher volume and increasing emphasis on quality there remains no reliable means of measuring the overall impact of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

OBJECTIVE

To utilize citation analysis to evaluate the dispersion of neurosurgical CPGs.

METHODS

A list of neurosurgical guidelines was compiled by performing electronic searches using the Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands) and National Guideline Clearinghouse databases. The Scopus database was queried to obtain current publication and citation data for all included documents and categorized based upon recognized neurosurgical specialties. The h-index, R-index, h2-index, i10-index, and dissemination index (D-Index) were manually calculated for each subspecialty.

RESULTS

After applying screening criteria the search yielded 372 neurosurgical CPGs, which were included for bibliometric analysis. The overall calculated h-index for neurosurgery was 56. When broken down by subspecialty trauma/critical care had the highest value at 35, followed by spine and peripheral nerve at 30, cerebrovascular at 28, tumor at 16, pediatrics at 14, miscellaneous at 11, and functional/stereotactic/pain at 6. Cerebrovascular neurosurgery was noted to have the highest D-Index at 3.4.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive framework is useful for guideline impact analysis. Bibliometric data provides a novel and adequate means of evaluating the successful dissemination of neurosurgical guidelines. There remains a paucity of data regarding implementation and clinical outcomes of individual guidelines.

Evidence-poor medicine: just how evidence-based are Australian clinical practice guidelines?

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines aim to assist medical practitioners in making efficient evidence-based decisions in daily practice. However, international studies have shown that the majority of recommendations in American and European guidelines are not based on strong evidence.

AIMS

To review Australian clinical practice guidelines across a broad range of high-impact conditions and determine how evidence-based they are.

METHODS

Australian guidelines published from January 2010 to May 2018 relating to the top 10 causes of death in Australia were identified from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) clinical practice guideline database and other relevant sources. The graded recommendations in these guidelines were extracted for analysis and the systems used for grading the recommendations were recorded.

RESULTS

Ten relevant Australian guidelines were identified, containing a total of 748 graded recommendations. All 10 guidelines used either the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) or NHMRC systems to assess recommendations. However, only 18% (n = 136) of these recommendations were based on Level I (or equivalent) evidence; 25% (n = 185) were based on Level II evidence, 29% (n = 218) on Level III, and 9% (n = 66) on Level IV. Consensus-based recommendations accounted for 19% (n = 143) of all recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the enthusiasm of the evidence-based medicine movement and its documented successes, contemporary medicine appears to remain largely evidence-poor, not evidence-based. Future research should aim to provide reliable descriptions of what constitutes valid clinical reasoning in evidence-poor situations.

The ethical and legal status of neurosurgical guidelines: the neurosurgeon's golden fleece or Achilles' heel?

Neurosurgical guidelines are fundamental for evidence-based practice and have considerably increased both in number and content over the last decades. Yet, guidelines in neurosurgery are not without limitations, as they are overwhelmingly based on low-level evidence. Such recommendations have in the past been occasionally overturned by well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), demonstrating the volatility of poorly underpinned evidence. Furthermore, even RCTs in surgery come with several limitations; most notably, interventions are often insufficiently standardized and assume a homogeneous patient population, which is not always applicable to neurosurgery. Lastly, guidelines are often outdated by the time they are published and smaller fields such as neurosurgery may lack a sufficient workforce to provide regular updates. These limitations raise the question of whether it is ethical to use low-level evidence for guideline recommendations, and if so, how strictly guidelines should be adhered to from an ethical and legal perspective. This article aims to offer a critical approach to the ethical and legal status of guidelines in neurosurgery. To this aim, the authors discuss: 1) the current state of neurosurgical guidelines and the evidence they are based on; 2) the degree of implementation of these guidelines; 3) the legal status of guidelines in medical disciplinary cases; and 4) the ethical balance between confident and critical use of guidelines. Ultimately, guidelines are neither laws that should always be followed nor purely academic efforts with little practical use. Every patient is unique, and tailored treatment defined by the surgeon will ensure optimal care; guidelines play an important role in creating a solid base that can be adhered to or deviated from, depending on the situation. From a research perspective, it is inevitable to rely on weaker evidence initially in order to generate more robust evidence later, and clinician-researchers have an ethical duty to contribute to generating and improving neurosurgical guidelines.

Towards Evidence-Based Guidelines in Neurological Surgery

Neurological surgery practice is based on the science of balancing probabilities. A variety of clinical guidance documents have influenced how we collectively practice our art since the early 20th century. The quality of the science within these guidelines varies widely, as does their utility in positively shaping our practice. The guidelines development process in neurological surgery has evolved significantly over the last 30 yr. Historically based in expert opinion, as a specialty we have increasingly relied on objective medical evidence to guide our clinical practice. We assessed the changing practice guidelines development process and the impact of scientifically robust guidelines on patient care. The evolution of the guidelines development process in neurological surgery was chronicled. Several subspecialty guidelines were extracted and reviewed in detail. Their impact on practice patterns was evaluated. The importance of evidence-based research and practice guidelines development was discussed. Evidence-based practice guidelines serve to chronicle multiple acceptable treatment options and help us move towards more standardized care for specific disease processes. They help refute false "standards of care." Guidelines-based care supported by solid medical evidence has the potential to streamline patient care and improve patient outcomes. The guidelines development process identifies areas, issues, and strategies for which little medical evidence exists, as well as topics that need focused scientific investigation and future study. The production of evidence-based practice recommendations is a vital part of furthering our specialty. Guidelines development advances our science, augments the resident education process, and protects our practice from undue external influence.

Importance and Presence of High-Quality Evidence for Clinical Decisions in Neurosurgery: International Survey of Neurosurgeons

BACKGROUND

The publication rate of neurosurgical guidelines has increased tremendously over the past decade; however, only a small proportion of clinical decisions appear to be based on high-quality evidence.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate the evidence available within neurosurgery and its value within clinical practice according to neurosurgeons.

METHODS

A Web-based survey was sent to 2552 neurosurgeons, who were members of the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies.

RESULTS

The response rate to the survey was 6.78% (173/2552). According to 48.6% (84/173) of the respondents, neurosurgery clinical practices are based on less evidence than other medical specialties and not enough high-quality evidence is available; however, 84.4% (146/173) of the respondents believed neurosurgery is amenable to evidence. Of the respondents, 59.0% (102/173) considered the neurosurgical guidelines in their hospital to be based on high-quality evidence, most of whom considered their own treatments to be based on high-quality (level I and/or level II) data (84.3%, 86/102; significantly more than for the neurosurgeons who did not consider the hospital guidelines to be based on high-quality evidence: 55%, 12/22; P<.001). Also, more neurosurgeons with formal training believed they could understand, criticize, and interpret statistical outcomes presented in journals than those without formal training (93%, 56/60 and 68%, 57/84 respectively; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the respondents, neurosurgery is based on high-quality evidence less often than other medical specialties. The results of the survey indicate that formal training in evidence-based medicine would enable neurosurgeons to better understand, criticize, and interpret statistical outcomes presented in journals.