Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research

Background: Citation analysis has become an important tool for research performance assessment in the medical sciences. However, different areas of medical research may have considerably different citation practices, even within the same medical field. Because of this, it is unclear to what extent citation-based bibliometric indicators allow for valid comparisons between research units active in different areas of medical research. Methodology: A visualization methodology is introduced that reveals differences in citation practices between medical research areas. The methodology extracts terms from the titles and abstracts of a large collection of publications and uses these terms to visualize the structure of a medical field and to indicate how research areas within this field differ from each other in their average citation impact. Results: Visualizations are provided for 32 medical fields, defined based on journal subject categories in the Web of Science database. The analysis focuses on three fields. In each of these fields, there turn out to be large differences in citation practices between research areas. Low-impact research areas tend to focus on clinical intervention research, while high-impact research areas are often more oriented on basic and diagnostic research. Conclusions: Popular bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the impact factor, do not correct for differences in citation practices between medical fields. These indicators therefore cannot be used to make accurate between-field comparisons. More sophisticated bibliometric indicators do correct for field differences but still fail to take into account within-field heterogeneity in citation practices. As a consequence, the citation impact of clinical intervention research may be substantially underestimated in comparison with basic and diagnostic research

Assessing the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of subcutaneous nerve stimulation in patients with predominant back pain due to failed back surgery syndrome (SubQStim study): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background: Chronic radicular pain can be effectively treated with spinal cord stimulation, but this therapy is not always sufficient for chronic back pain. Subcutaneous nerve stimulation (SQS) refers to the placement of percutaneous leads in the subcutaneous tissue within the area of pain. Case series data show that failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients experience clinically important levels of pain relief following SQS and may also reduce their levels of analgesic therapy and experience functional well-being. However, to date, there is no randomized controlled trial evidence to support the use of SQS in FBSS. Methods/Design: The SubQStim study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing SQS plus optimized medical management (‘SQS arm’) versus optimized medical management alone (‘OMM arm’) in patients with predominant back pain due to FBSS. Up to 400 patients will be recruited from approximately 33 centers in Europe and Australia and will be randomized 1:1 to the SQS or OMM arms. After 9 months, patients who fail to reach the primary outcome will be allowed to switch treatments. Patients will be evaluated at baseline (prior to randomization) and at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months after randomization. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients at 9 months with a ≥50% reduction in back pain intensity compared to baseline. The secondary outcomes are: back and leg pain intensity score, functional disability, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, patient global impression of change, healthcare resource utilization/costs, cost-effectiveness analysis and adverse events. Outcomes arms will be compared between SQS and OMM arms at all evaluation points up to and including 9 months. After the 9-month assessment visit, the main analytic focus will be to compare within patient changes in outcomes relative to baseline. Discussion: The SubQStim trial began patient recruitment in November 2012. Recruitment is expected to close in late 2014

"Omics" in traumatic brain injury: novel approaches to a complex disease

Background: To date, there is neither any pharmacological treatment with efficacy in traumatic brain injury (TBI) nor any method to halt the disease progress. This is due to an incomplete understanding of the vast complexity of the biological cascades and failure to appreciate the diversity of secondary injury mechanisms in TBI. In recent years, techniques for high-throughput characterization and quantification of biological molecules that include genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics have evolved and referred to as omics.Methods: In this narrative review, we highlight how omics technology can be applied to potentiate diagnostics and prognostication as well as to advance our understanding of injury mechanisms in TBI.Results: The omics platforms provide possibilities to study function, dynamics, and alterations of molecular pathways of normal and TBI disease states. Through advanced bioinformatics, large datasets of molecular information from small biological samples can be analyzed in detail and provide valuable knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms, to include in prognostic modeling when connected to clinically relevant data. In such a complex disease as TBI, omics enables broad categories of studies from gene compositions associated with susceptibility to secondary injury or poor outcome, to potential alterations in metabolites following TBI.Conclusion: The field of omics in TBI research is rapidly evolving. The recent data and novel methods reviewed herein may form the basis for improved precision medicine approaches, development of pharmacological approaches, and individualization of therapeutic efforts by implementing mathematical "big data" predictive modeling in the near future.</p

Cost-effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy versus conventional open discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation

Background: Open discectomy is the standard surgical procedure in the treatment of patients with long-lasting sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation. Minimally invasive approaches such as microendoscopic discectomy have gained attention in recent years. Reduced tissue trauma allows early ambulation, short hospital stay and quick resumption of daily activities. A comparative cost-effectiveness study has not been performed yet. We present the design of a randomised controlled trial on cost-effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy versus conventional open discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation. Methods/Design: Patients (age 18-70 years) presenting with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation lasting more than 6-8 weeks are included. Patients with disc herniation larger than 1/3 of the spinal canal diameter, or disc herniation less than 1/3 of the spinal canal diameter with concomitant lateral recess stenosis or sequestration, are eliglible for participation. Randomisation into microendoscopic discectomy or conventional unilateral transflaval discectomy will take place in the operating room after induction of anesthesia. The length of skin incision is equal in both groups. The primary outcome measure is the functional assessment of the patient, measured by the Roland Disability Questionnaire for Sciatica, at 8 weeks and 1 year after surgery. We will also evaluate several other outcome parameters, including perceived recovery, leg and back pain, incidence of re-operations, complications, serum creatine kinase, quality of life, medical consumption, absenteeism and costs. The study is a randomised prospective multi-institutional trial, in which two surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurses are kept blinded of the allocated treatment during the follow-up period of 2 years. Discussion: Currently, open discectomy is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Whether microendoscopic discectomy is more cost-effective than unilateral transflaval discectomy has to be determined by this trial

Surgery versus conservative management of sciatica due to a lumbar herniated disc: a systematic review

The effectiveness of surgery in patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniations is not without dispute. The goal of this study was to assess the effects of surgery versus conservative therapy (including epidural injections) for patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PEDro up to October 2009. Randomised controlled trials of adults with lumbar radicular pain, which evaluated at least one clinically relevant outcome measure (pain, functional status, perceived recovery, lost days of work) were included. Two authors assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane criteria and extracted the data. In total, five studies were identified, two of which with a low risk of bias. One study compared early surgery with prolonged conservative care followed by surgery if needed; three studies compared surgery with usual conservative care, and one study compared surgery with epidural injections. Data were not pooled because of clinical heterogeneity and poor reporting of data. One large low-risk-of-bias trial demonstrated that early surgery in patients with 6–12 weeks of radicular pain leads to faster pain relief when compared with prolonged conservative treatment, but there were no differences after 1 and 2 years. Another large low-risk-of-bias trial between surgery and usual conservative care found no statistically significant differences on any of the primary outcome measures after 1 and 2 years. Future studies should evaluate who benefits more from surgery and who from conservative care

Concomitant trauma of brain and upper cervical spine: lessons in injury patterns and outcomes

Purpose: The literature on concomitant traumatic brain injury (TBI) and traumatic spinal injury is sparse and a few, if any, studies focus on concomitant TBI and associated upper cervical injury. The objective of this study was to fill this gap and to define demographics, patterns of injury, and clinical data of this specific population. Methods: Records of patients admitted at a single trauma centre with the main diagnosis of TBI and concomitant C0-C1-C2 injury (upper cervical spine) were identified and reviewed. Demographics, clinical, and radiological variables were analyzed and compared to those of patients with TBI and: (i) C3-C7 injury (lower cervical spine); (ii) any other part of the spine other than C1-C2 injury (non-upper cervical); (iii) T1-L5 injury (thoracolumbar). Results: 1545 patients were admitted with TBI and an associated C1-C2 injury was found in 22 (1.4%). The mean age was 64&nbsp;years, and 54.5% were females. Females had a higher rate of concomitant upper cervical injury (p = 0.046 vs non-upper cervical; p = 0.050 vs thoracolumbar). Patients with an upper cervical injury were significantly older (p = 0.034 vs lower cervical; p = 0.030 vs non-upper cervical). Patients older than 55&nbsp;years old had higher odds of an upper cervical injury when compared to the other groups (OR = 2.75). The main mechanism of trauma was road accidents (RAs) (10/22; 45.5%) All pedestrian injuries occurred in the upper cervical injured group (p = 0.015). ICU length of stay was longer for patients with an upper cervical injury (p = 0.018). Four patients died in the upper cervical injury group (18.2%), and no death occurred in other comparator groups (p = 0.003). Conclusions: The rate of concomitant cranial and upper cervical spine injury was 1.4%. Risk factors were female gender, age ≥ 55, and pedestrians. RAs were the most common mechanism of injury. There was an association between the upper cervical injury group and longer ICU stay as well as higher mortality rates. Increased understanding of the pattern of concomitant craniospinal injury can help guide comprehensive diagnosis, avoid missed injuries, and appropriate treatment

The NEtherlands Cervical Kinematics (NECK) Trial. Cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with or without interbody fusion and arthroplasty in the treatment of cervical disc herniation; a double-blind randomised multicenter study

Background. Patients with cervical radicular syndrome due to disc herniation refractory to conservative treatment are offered surgical treatment. Anterior cervical discectomy is the standard procedure, often in combination with interbody fusion. Accelerated adjacent disc degeneration is a known entity on the long term. Recently, cervical disc prostheses are developed to maintain motion and possibly reduce the incidence of adjacent disc degeneration. A comparative cost-effectiveness study focused on adjacent segment degeneration and functional outcome has not been performed yet. We present the design of the NECK trial, a randomised study on cost-effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with or without interbody fusion and arthroplasty in patients with cervical disc herniation. Methods/Design. Patients (age 18-65 years) presenting with radicular signs due to single level cervical disc herniation lasting more than 8 weeks are included. Patients will be randomised into 3 groups: anterior discectomy only, anterior discectomy with interbody fusion, and anterior discectomy with disc prosthesis. The primary outcome measure is symptomatic adjacent disc degeneration at 2 and 5 years after surgery. Other outcome parameters will be the Neck Disability Index, perceived recovery, arm and neck pain, complications, re-operations, quality of life, job satisfaction, anxiety and depression assessment, medical consumption, absenteeism, and costs. The study is a randomised prospective multicenter trial, in which 3 surgical techniques are compared in a parallel group design. Patients and research nurses will be kept blinded of the allocated treatment for 2 years. The follow-up period is 5 years. Discussion. Currently, anterior cervical discectomy with fusion is the golden standard in the surgical treatment of cervical disc herniation. Whether additional interbody fusion or disc prothesis is necessary and cost-effective will be determined by this trial. Trial Registration. Netherlands Trial Register NTR1289

The significance of intra-abdominal pressure in neurosurgery and neurological diseases : a narrative review and a conceptual proposal

Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is a physiological parameter that has gained considerable attention during the last few decades. The incidence of complications arising from increased IAP, known as intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) or abdominal compartment syndrome in critically ill patients, is high and its impact is significant. The effects of IAP in neurological conditions and during surgical procedures are largely unexplored. IAP also appears to be relevant during neurosurgical procedures (spine and brain) in the prone position, and in selected cases, IAH may affect cerebrospinal fluid drainage after a ventriculoperitoneal shunt operation. Furthermore, raised IAP is one of the contributors to intracranial hypertension in patients with morbid obesity. In traumatic brain injury, case reports described how abdominal decompression lowers intracerebral pressure. The anatomical substrate for transmission of the IAP to the brain and venous system of the spine is the extradural neural axis compartment; the first reports of this phenomenon can be found in anatomical studies of the sixteenth century. In this review, we summarize the available knowledge on how IAP impacts the cerebrospinal venous system and the jugular venous system via two pathways, and we discuss the implications for neurosurgical procedures as well as the relevance of IAH in neurological disorders

A diagnostic study in patients with sciatica establishing the importance of localization of worsening of pain during coughing, sneezing and straining to assess nerve root compression on MRI

Purpose: To test whether the localization of worsening of pain during coughing, sneezing and straining matters in the assessment of lumbosacral nerve root compression or disc herniation on MRI. Methods: Recently the diagnostic accuracy of history items to assess disc herniation or nerve root compression on magnetic resonance

A New Approach to Evidence Synthesis in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Living Systematic Review.

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are online summaries of health care research that are updated as new research becomes available. This new development in evidence synthesis is being trialled as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) project. We will develop and sustain an international TBI knowledge community that maintains up-to-date, high quality LSRs of the current state of knowledge in the most important questions in TBI. Automatic search updates will be run three-monthly, and newly identified studies incorporated into the review. Review teams will seek to publish journal updates at regular intervals, with abridged updates available more frequently online. Future project stages include the integration of LSR and other study findings into "living" clinical practice guidance. It is hoped these efforts will go some way to bridging current temporal disconnects between evidence, guidelines, and practice in TBI