Management and outcomes of sellar, suprasellar and parasellar masses in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review protocol

Sellar, suprasellar or parasellar masses refer to space-occupying lesions that arise from the area surrounding the pituitary gland and many other vital structures, which can impact quality of life if damaged. Therefore, optimal management by a multidisciplinary team, which includes neurosurgeons, would be required to ensure that patients receive timely intervention to prevent long-term co-morbidities. The landscape of management of these masses in high-income countries are well described in the literature, however, there is a lack of clarity in the counterpart low- and middle-income countries, thus necessitating an evaluation of the literature. This protocol outlines how we will conduct our scoping review on the topic of interest. MEDLINE, Embase, Global Index Medicus and African Journals Online will be searched from year 2000 to date in order to identify the relevant studies. Patients with a sellar, suprasellar or parasellar masses managed in an LMIC will be included. Surgical, medical and conservative management of the relevant masses will be considered. Articles in English and French will be included. Primary outcome will describe the management of sellar, suprasellar, or parasellar masses in LMICs. Secondary outcomes will include describing the epidemiology, presentation and outcomes of patients with sellar, suprasellar or parasellar masses. This scoping review will be the first to evaluate the current landscape of the management and outcomes of sellar, suprasellar and parasellar masses in LMICs, highlighting important themes that may be used to guide further research as well as health system strengthening efforts by policymakers, governments and stakeholders

Survey fatigue during the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of neurosurgery survey response rates

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a surge in research activity while restricting data collection methods, leading to a rise in survey-based studies. Anecdotal evidence suggests this increase in neurosurgical survey dissemination has led to a phenomenon of survey fatigue, characterized by decreased response rates and reducing the quality of data. This paper aims to analyze the effect of COVID-19 on neurosurgery surveys and their response rates, and suggest strategies for improving survey data collection. Methods: A search was conducted on March 20, 2021, on Medline and EMBASE. This included the terms “neurosurgery,” “cranial surgery,” “spine surgery,” and “survey” and identified surveys written in English, on a neurosurgical topic, distributed to neurosurgeons, trainees, and medical students. Results were screened by two authors according to these inclusion criteria, and included articles were used for data extraction, univariable, and bivariable analysis with Fisher's exact-test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and Spearman's correlation. Results: We included 255 articles in our analysis, 32.3% of which were published during the COVID-19 pandemic. Surveys had an average of 25.6 (95% CI = 22.5–28.8) questions and were mostly multiple choice (78.8%). They were disseminated primarily by email (75.3%, 95% CI = 70.0–80.6%) and there was a significant increase in dissemination via social media during the pandemic (OR = 3.50, 95% CI = 1.30–12.0). COVID-19 surveys were distributed to more geographical regions than pre-pandemic surveys (2.1 vs. 1.5, P = 0.01) and had higher total responses (247.0 vs. 206.4, P = 0.01), but lower response rates (34.5 vs. 51.0%, P < 0.001) than pre-COVID-19 surveys. Conclusion: The rise in neurosurgical survey distribution during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to survey fatigue, reduced response rates, and data collection quality. We advocate for population targeting to avoid over-researching, collaboration between research teams to minimize duplicate surveys, and communication with respondents to convey study importance, and we suggest further strategies to improve response rates in neurosurgery survey data collection

Management and outcomes of sellar, suprasellar, and parasellar masses in low-and middle- income countries: a scoping review

Background: There are several studies which describe the current management strategies and outcomes of SMs in High-Income Countries (HICs). However, there is little known the situation regarding SMs in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) apart from studies describing the experience from tertiary centres. With this study, we identified the epidemiology, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of SMs, SSMs, and PSMs in LMICs while reviewing and synthesising the relevant literature. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines were used to report the findings. MEDLINE, Embase, Global Index Medicus, and African Journals OnLine were the databases of choice. Cases were included if the pathology was related to the sellar, parasellar or suprasellar regions. The dataset was analysed using descriptive statistics via SPSS. Results: We have includedn=16589 patients from 49 LMICs. LMICs with the most studies were in China (n=49, 4.9%). Headache was the most reported symptomn=3995 with a mean of 29.82 cases per study (Range 0–130). Most reported tumour location was the sellar regionn=12933 (85%). Somatotroph adenomas was the most diagnosed pituitary adenoma (n=3297). The most frequently diagnosed non-pituitary adenomatous mass was arachnoid cysts (n=282). Endoscopic approaches were far more utilised compared to microsurgical approaches, n=3418 and n=1730, respectively. Hormonal therapies with Cabergoline were administered in 1700 patients with prolactinoma. Radiosurgery was performed in n=357 patients. The average follow-up duration was 33.26 months. Conclusion: Neuro-oncology and pituitary research in LMICs remains under-reported. Our understanding of the current landscape of the management and outcomes of sellar, suprasellar and parasellar masses show that there is similarity to the management approaches utilised compared to HICs. The surgical outcomes, although largely underreported, were worse in LMICs compared to HICs, highlighting the need for more research and education