Literature DB >> 26268581

Foundations for evidence-based intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring.

Jeremy Howick1, Bernard Allan Cohen2, Peter McCulloch3, Matthew Thompson4, Stanley A Skinner5.   

Abstract

In this review, we recommend means to enhance the evidence-base for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM). We address two preliminary issues: (1) whether IONM should be evaluated as a diagnostic test or an intervention, and (2) the state of the evidence for IONM (as presented in systematic reviews, for example). Three reasons may be suggested to evaluate at least some IONM applications as interventions (or as part of an "interventional cascade"). First, practical barriers limit our ability to measure IONM diagnostic accuracy. Second, IONM results are designed to be correlated with interventions during surgery. Third, IONM should improve patient outcomes when IONM-directed intervention alters the course of surgery. Observational evidence for IONM is growing yet more is required to understand the conditions under which IONM, in its variety of settings, can benefit patients. A multi-center observational cohort study would represent an important initial compromise between the pragmatic difficulties with conducting controlled trials in IONM and the Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) view that large scale randomized trials are required. Such a cohort study would improve the evidence base and (if justified) provide the rationale for controlled trials.
Copyright © 2015 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Controlled trial; Cost effectiveness; Diagnostic test analysis; EBM; Evidence-Based Medicine; IONM; Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring; Rate ratio

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26268581     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.05.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 1388-2457            Impact factor:   3.708


  7 in total

Review 1.  Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2015 end of year summary: anesthesia.

Authors:  Jan F A Hendrickx; Andre De Wolf; Stanley Skinner
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-12-26       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  The EMG-MEP-outcomes relationship: it's complicated.

Authors:  Stan Skinner
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 3.  Commentary : The value of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring: evidence, equipoise and outcomes.

Authors:  R N Holdefer; S A Skinner
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 2.502

4.  The Use of Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring in Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Anastasios Charalampidis; Fan Jiang; Jamie R F Wilson; Jetan H Badhiwala; Darrel S Brodke; Michael G Fehlings
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-01-06

5.  Exploring the utility of neuro-monitoring in neurosurgery: The users' perspective in a single center.

Authors:  Chulananda Goonasekera; Holly Jones; Rebekah Lawrence; John Hanrahan; Priyanka Iyer; Aditi Nijhawan
Journal:  Saudi J Anaesth       Date:  2021-01-05

6.  Amplitude-reduction alert criteria and intervention during complex paediatric cervical spine surgery.

Authors:  William M McDevitt; Laura Quinn; W S B Wimalachandra; Edmund Carver; Catalina Stendall; Guirish A Solanki; Andrew Lawley
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol Pract       Date:  2022-07-28

Review 7.  Intraoperative Spinal Cord Monitoring: Focusing on the Basic Knowledge of Orthopedic Spine Surgeon and Neurosurgeon as Members of a Team Performing Spine Surgery under Neuromonitoring.

Authors:  Tetsuya Tamaki; Muneharu Ando; Yukihiro Nakagawa; Hiroshi Iwasaki; Shunji Tsutsui; Masanari Takami; Hiroshi Yamada
Journal:  Spine Surg Relat Res       Date:  2021-03-10
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.