Why the study?
The study was conducted to quantify the rate of adverse events associated with neurosurgery interventions, evaluate differences in their reporting among authors and reviews, and identify the reasons for these differences.
What is the rate of adverse events in neurosurgery and why are there differences in reporting among authors?
What is the rate of adverse events in neurosurgery and why are there differences in reporting among authors?
There is a critical need for standardized, prospective, multi-institutional data collection using universally accepted criteria to accurately report complications in neurosurgery.
Inconsistent neurosurgical complication reporting precludes reliable adverse event rates; leaves open true incidence pending standardized prospective multi-institutional collection.
Objective. The purpose of this study was to quantify the rate of adverse events associated to in neurosurgery interventions, to evaluate the differences in reporting of such events among different authors and reviews, and to find the reason behind the occurrence of this differences. Methods. A systematic literature review of scientific publications on existing classifications and reports of frequency on complications in neurosurgery was performed by analysing articles from international databases. Results and conclusion. This current overview is taking an outlook on the existing issues in the classification and reporting of complications in neurosurgery. Complications are common in neurosurgery. Because of nonuniform criteria, unstandardized data gathering procedures, and retrospective data collection, their reporting is inconsistent and varies considerably among authors and reviews. The best way to address this issue is by gathering prospective, multi-institutional outcomes data on neurosurgical patients. The data collection initiatives in the future should be using same terminology and be based on the same universally accepted criteria.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riabec et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: