Towards a common language in neurosurgical outcome evaluation: the NEON (NEurosurgical Outcome Network) proposal.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to achieve a consensus on the minimum set of outcome measures and predictors to be used in the neurosurgical practice and on the timing of outcome assessment. METHODS: A consensus building approach was employed. All neurosurgical departments in Lombardy (Italy) were invited to participate by the Carlo Besta Neurologic Institute IRCCS Foundation. Three workshops were organized during which a multidisciplinary group called Neurosurgical Outcome Network (NEON) was created and the methodology to select outcome measures, predictors, and timing of outcome assessment was established. Eight working groups were created for the different neurosurgical diseases (neuro-oncological, skull base, vascular, traumatic, spinal, peripheral nervous system, malformation, functional) and 8 workshops were organized to identify the outcome measures and predictors specific for each of the neurosurgical diseases based on the experts' clinical practice and the existing literature. RESULTS: A total of 20 neurosurgical departments participated in this study. Specific outcome measures, predictors and the timing of outcome assessment were identified for each of the 8 neurosurgical diseases. Moreover, a list of variables common to all pathologies were identified by the NEON group as further data to be collected. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus on the minimum set of outcome measures and predictors and the timing of outcome assessments for 8 neurosurgical diseases was achieved by a group of neurosurgeons of the Lombardy region, called NEON. These sets could be used in future studies for a more homogeneous data collection and as a starting point to reach further agreement also at national and international level.

Patient-reported outcome and cognitive measures to be used in vascular and brain tumor surgery: proposal for a minimum set.

BACKGROUND: The standardization of outcome measures is needed for comparing studies and using common measures in clinical practice. We aimed to identify cognitive and patient-reported outcomes and timing of assessment for glioma, meningioma, and vascular surgery. METHOD: A consensus study was conducted. Participants selected cognitive and patient-reported measures among a list of instruments identified through a literature search. RESULTS: Seventeen cognitive tests for the glioma and meningioma's evaluation, 8 for the vascular diseases, and one questionnaire on quality of life and one on emotional distress were identified. The timing of outcome assessment selected was before surgery, at discharge, and after 3 and 12 months for glioma; before surgery and after 3 months for meningioma; before surgery, at discharge, and after 6 months for vascular diseases. CONCLUSION: The identification of common outcome measures is the first step toward a shared data collection improving the quality and comparability of future studies.