Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Acta Neurochirurgica
Published in: Acta Neurochirurgica 4/2019

Open Access 01-04-2019 | Review Article - Neurosurgery general

Randomized controlled trials comparing surgery to non-operative management in neurosurgery: a systematic review

Authors: Enrico Martin, Ivo S. Muskens, Joeky T. Senders, Aislyn C. DiRisio, Aditya V. Karhade, Hasan A. Zaidi, Wouter A. Moojen, Wilco C. Peul, Timothy R. Smith, Marike L. D. Broekman

Published in: Acta Neurochirurgica | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) remains the pinnacle of clinical research design. However, RCTs in neurosurgery, especially those comparing surgery to non-operative treatment, are rare and their relevance and applicability have been questioned. This study set out to assess trial design and quality and identify their influence on outcomes in recent neurosurgical trials that compare surgery to non-operative treatment.

Methods

From 2000 to 2017, PubMed and Embase databases and four trial registries were searched. RCTs were evaluated for study design, funding, adjustments to reported outcome measures, accrual of patients, and academic impact.

Results

Eighty-two neurosurgical RCTs were identified, 40 in spine disorders, 19 neurovascular and neurotrauma, 11 functional neurosurgery, ten peripheral nerve, and two pituitary surgery. Eighty-four RCTs were registered, of which some are ongoing. Trial registration rate differed per subspecialty. Funding was mostly from non-industry institutions (58.5%), but 25.6% of RCTs did not report funding sources. 36.4% of RCTs did not report a difference between surgical and non-operative treatment, 3.7% favored non-operative management. Primary and secondary outcome measures were changed in 13.2% and 34.2% of RCTs respectively and varied by subspecialty. 41.9% of RCTs subtracted ≥ 10% of the anticipated accrual and 12.9% of RCTs added ≥ 10%. 7.3% of registered RCTs were terminated, mostly due to too slow recruitment. Subspecialty, registration, funding, masking, population size, and changing outcome measures were not significantly associated with a reported benefit of surgery. High Jadad scores (≥ 4) were negatively associated with a demonstration of surgical benefit (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Neurosurgical RCTs comparing surgical to non-operative treatment often find a benefit for surgical treatment. Changes to outcome measurements and anticipated accrual are common and funding sources are not always reported.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Angus DC (2015) Fusing randomized trials with big data: the key to self-learning health care systems? JAMA 314(8):767–768CrossRefPubMed
2.
Antoniou SA, Andreou A, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Kohler G, Luketina R-R, Bertsias A, Pointner R, Granderath F-A (2015) Volume and methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in laparoscopic surgery: assessment over a 10-year period. Am J Surg 210(5):922–929CrossRefPubMed
3.
EC/IC Bypass Study Group (1985) Failure of extracranial-intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke. Results of an international randomized trial. N Engl J Med 313(19):1191–1200CrossRef
4.
Evaniew N, Files C, Smith C, Bhandari M, Ghert M, Walsh M, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt G (2015) The fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in spine surgery: a systematic survey. Spine J 15(10):2188–2197CrossRefPubMed
5.
Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Antoniou GA, Green PA, Maden M, Torella F (2015) Reporting and methodological quality of randomised controlled trials in vascular and endovascular surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 50(5):664–670CrossRefPubMed
6.
Hueng D-Y, Tsai C-L, Hsu S-W, Ma H-I (2012) Publication patterns of comparative effectiveness research in spine neurosurgery. Neurosurg Focus 33(1):E9CrossRefPubMed
7.
Hutchinson PJ, Kolias AG, Timofeev IS et al (2016) Trial of decompressive craniectomy for traumatic intracranial hypertension. N Engl J Med 375(12):1119–1130CrossRefPubMed
8.
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17(1):1–12CrossRefPubMed
9.
Jamjoom AAB, Gane AB, Demetriades AK (2017) Randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery: an observational analysis of trial discontinuation and publication outcome. J Neurosurg 127(4):857–866CrossRefPubMed
10.
Jones CW, Keil LG, Holland WC, Caughey MC, Platts-Mills TF (2015) Comparison of registered and published outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. BMC Med 13:282CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Juttler E, Schwab S, Schmiedek P, Unterberg A, Hennerici M, Woitzik J, Witte S, Jenetzky E, Hacke W (2007) Decompressive surgery for the treatment of malignant infarction of the middle cerebral artery (DESTINY): a randomized, controlled trial. Stroke 38(9):2518–2525CrossRefPubMed
12.
Kiehna EN, Starke RM, Pouratian N, Dumont AS (2011) Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery. J Neurosurg 114(2):280–285CrossRefPubMed
13.
Killeen S, Sourallous P, Hunter IA, Hartley JE, Grady HLO (2014) Registration rates, adequacy of registration, and a comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials published in surgery journals. Ann Surg 259(1):193–196CrossRefPubMed
14.
Lancaster GA, Dodd S, Williamson PR (2004) Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. J Eval Clin Pract 10(2):307–312CrossRefPubMed
15.
London AJ (2006) No Title. In: Reitsma A, Moreno J (eds) Ethical Guidel. Innov. Surg. University Publishing Group, Hagerstown, pp 19–52
16.
Maas AIR, Menon DK, Steyerberg EW, Citerio G, Lecky F, Manley GT, Hill S, Legrand V, Sorgner A (2015) Collaborative European NEUROTRauma effectiveness research in traumatic brain injury (CENTER-TBI): a prospective longitudinal observational study. Neurosurgery 76(1):67–80CrossRefPubMed
17.
Mansouri A, Shin S, Cooper B, Srivastava A, Bhandari M, Kondziolka D (2015) Randomized controlled trials and neuro-oncology: should alternative designs be considered? J Neuro-Oncol 124(3):345–356CrossRef
18.
Mansouri A, Cooper B, Shin SM, Kondziolka D (2016) Randomized controlled trials and neurosurgery: the ideal fit or should alternative methodologies be considered? J Neurosurg 124(2):558–568CrossRefPubMed
19.
Marko NF, Weil RJ (2012) An introduction to comparative effectiveness research. Neurosurgery 70(2):425–434 discussion 434CrossRefPubMed
20.
Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Ravaud P (2009) Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 302(9):977–984CrossRefPubMed
21.
McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB et al (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet (London, England) 374(9695):1105–1112CrossRef
22.
Mohr JP, Parides MK, Stapf C et al (2014) Medical management with or without interventional therapy for unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations (ARUBA): a multicentre, non-blinded, randomised trial. Lancet (London, England) 383(9917):614–621CrossRef
23.
Rosenthal R, Dwan K (2013) Comparison of randomized controlled trial registry entries and content of reports in surgery journals. Ann Surg 257(6):1007–1015CrossRefPubMed
24.
Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, Riley RD, Simmonds M, Stewart G, Tierney JF (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD statement. JAMA 313(16):1657–1665CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Yao AC, Khajuria A, Camm CF, Edison E, Agha R (2014) The reporting quality of parallel randomised controlled trials in ophthalmic surgery in 2011: a systematic review. Eye (Lond) 28(11):1341–1349CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Randomized controlled trials comparing surgery to non-operative management in neurosurgery: a systematic review
Authors
Enrico Martin
Ivo S. Muskens
Joeky T. Senders
Aislyn C. DiRisio
Aditya V. Karhade
Hasan A. Zaidi
Wouter A. Moojen
Wilco C. Peul
Timothy R. Smith
Marike L. D. Broekman
Publication date
01-04-2019
Publisher
Springer Vienna
Published in
Acta Neurochirurgica / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0001-6268
Electronic ISSN: 0942-0940
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-019-03849-w

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Acta Neurochirurgica 4/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article - Vascular Neurosurgery - Aneurysm

Hemorrhagic burden in poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a volumetric analysis of different bleeding distributions

Original Article - Peripheral Nerves

Lipomatosis of nerve and overgrowth: is there a preference for motor (mixed) vs. sensory nerve involvement?

Original Article - Neurosurgical intensive care

Best zero level for external ICP transducer

Original Article - Vascular Neurosurgery - Ischemia

Factors related to improvement of cerebrovascular reserve after superficial temporal artery to middle cerebral artery anastomosis for patients with atherosclerotic steno-occlusive disease

Original Article - Neurosurgical Anatomy

Anterior communicating artery division in the endoscopic endonasal translamina terminalis approach to the third ventricle: an anatomical feasibility study

Original Article - Tumor - Other

Delayed postoperative hyponatremia after endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenoma