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.

Assessing the efficacy of renal denervation in patients with resistant arterial hypertension : Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Renal denervation (RDN) is an innovative procedure designed to regulate the renal sympathetic nervous system for the control of arterial hypertension (HTN). RDN has emerged as an alternative for patients with resistant HTN. However, the clinical efficacy of RDN remains incompletely elucidated. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of RDN with sham procedure or pharmacological treatment in patients with resistant HTN. Statistical analyses were performed using R Studio 4.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Heterogeneity was examined with the Cochran Q test I2 statistics. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled across trials. P values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant. The primary outcomes of interest were changes from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and serum creatinine. RESULTS: Twenty-one RCTs comprising 3345 patients were included in this meta-analysis, whereby 2004 (59.91%) received renal denervation and 1341 (40.09%) received pharmacological treatment or sham procedure. Follow-up ranged from 2 to 48 months. Compared to control group, RDN significantly reduced SBP (MD -3.53 mm Hg; 95% CI -5.94 to -1.12; p = 0.004; I2 = 74%) and DBP (MD -1.48 mm Hg; 95% CI -2.56 to -0.40; p = 0.007; I2 = 51%). Regarding serum creatinine (MD -2.51; 95% CI -7.90 to 2.87; p = 0.36; I2 = 40%), there was no significant difference between RDN and control groups. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with resistant HTN, RDN was associated with a reduction in SBP and DBP compared to sham procedure or pharmacological treatment.

Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus under general anesthesia versus local anesthesia in the treatment of Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) stands as the preferred treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD) patients manifesting refractory motor symptoms or when medication side effects outweigh the benefits. Though traditionally administered under local anesthesia coupled with sedation (LA + S), recent evidence hints at comparable outcomes under general anesthesia (GA). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to scrutinize post-surgical outcomes in randomized PD patients undergoing DBS surgery while GA versus LA + S. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases following PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized studies directly comparing DBS surgery under GA versus LA + S, delineating clinical outcomes. Safety outcomes assessed disparities in infection and hemorrhage risk. Mean differences (MD) and Risk Differences (RD) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were utilized to evaluate outcomes, under a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated through I² statistics, and in studies exhibiting high heterogeneity, exclusion analysis was performed. Evaluated outcomes encompassed motor improvement, complications, behavioral and mood effects gauged by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ39), and daily levodopa equivalent dose (LEDD). A total of 3 studies, encompassing 203 patients, were reviewed. At a 6-month follow-up, in patients undergoing GA during surgery, there was no statistically significant difference compared to the LA + S group in terms of UPDRS III ON (MD 0.19; 95% CI -2.21 to 2.59; p = 0.88; I²=0%), UPDRS III OFF (MD 0.58; 95% CI -4.30 to 5.45; p = 0.21; I²=0%), UPDRS IV ON ( (MD 0.98; 95% CI -0.95 to 2.92; p = 0.32; I²=23%), PDQ39 (MD -1.27; 95% CI -6.31 to 3.77; p = 0.62; I²=0%), and LEDD (MD -1.99; 95% CI -77.88 to 73.90; p = 0.96; I²=32%). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in terms of infection (RD 0.02; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.05; p = 0.377; I²=0%) or hemorrhage (RD 0.04; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.11; p = 0.215; I²=0%). Our findings suggest, based on short-term follow-up, that GA is not inferior to LA + S in terms of benefits for the selected outcomes. However, further studies are needed to determine whether there are significant long-term clinical differences between these groups.

Efficacy and Safety of Atorvastatin for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a common neurological condition, especially in the elderly population. Atorvastatin has shown the potential to reduce the recurrence of CSDH and improve overall outcomes. New studies have emerged since the last meta-analysis, increasing the sample size and the variety of outcomes analyzed. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies comparing the use of atorvastatin in CSDH patients with a control group or placebo. The primary outcome was the recurrence of CSDH. Secondary outcomes of interest were hematoma volume, composite adverse effects, mortality, and neurological function, measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale and Barthel index for activities of daily living. RESULTS: Seven studies, of which 2 were randomized controlled trials, were included, containing 1192 patients. Overall recurrence significantly decreased compared to the control group (risk ratio [RR] 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.83; P=0.009). The benefits of atorvastatin were sustained in the subgroup analysis of patients who underwent initial conservative therapy (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.22-0.70; P=0.001). However, there was no significant difference when atorvastatin was combined with surgical intervention (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.21-1.32; P=0.17). Adverse effects were not increased by atorvastatin (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.51-1.34; P=0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Atorvastatin might be beneficial in reducing CSDH recurrence, especially in conservative treatment patients. Atorvastatin was not significantly associated with adverse effects. Larger, higher-quality randomized studies are needed to adequately evaluate the efficacy, safety, and optimal dose of atorvastatin in CSDH patients.