Evan D Bander1, Jonathan H Sherman2, Chetan Bettegowda3, Manish K Aghi4, Jason Sheehan5, Rohan Ramakrishna6. 1. Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 525 E. 68th St, Box 99, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 2. Department of Neurological Surgery, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. 3. Department of Neurological Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA. 6. Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 525 E. 68th St, Box 99, New York, NY, 10065, USA. ror9068@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Karen E A Burns; Mark Duffett; Michelle E Kho; Maureen O Meade; Neill K J Adhikari; Tasnim Sinuff; Deborah J Cook Journal: CMAJ Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Michael C Dewan; Reid C Thompson; Steven N Kalkanis; Fred G Barker; Constantinos G Hadjipanayis Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Adam S Wu; Victoria T Trinh; Dima Suki; Susan Graham; Arthur Forman; Jeffrey S Weinberg; Ian E McCutcheon; Sujit S Prabhu; Amy B Heimberger; Raymond Sawaya; Xuemei Wang; Wei Qiao; Kenneth Hess; Frederick F Lang Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Ceara Tess Cunningham; Hude Quan; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Tom Noseworthy; Cynthia A Beck; Elijah Dixon; Susan Samuel; William A Ghali; Lindsay L Sykes; Nathalie Jetté Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 4.615