CORRESPONDENCE “MCS and pain and quality of life.”.” The authors did not provide Letter: Quality of Life After Motor Cortex a detailed search statement or strategy in the text or in supple- Stimulation: Clinical Results and Systematic mental materials. We think that providing search statement or Review of the Literature strategy is important, because the readers have to assume that the To the Editor: search in the Methods section represents the true extent of the Recently, Parravano et al published an article in Neuro- search strategy. surgery. Such effort is meaningful, and we appreciate the author’s In conclusion, we believe that the appropriate assessment of efforts to evaluate the effects of motor cortex stimulation (MCS) study quality will led to consistent and useful information for on quality of life. This review included 6 randomized control future research and clinicians. trials (RCTs) and observational studies, which include different outcome measures. In fact, we have several comments regarding Disclosure the interpretation of the methods of this review. The main aim of The authors have no personal, financial, or institutional interest in any of the the review as the authors state was to “report the effects of MCS drugs, materials, or devices described in this article. and quality of life in a series of MCS-treated patients prospectively followed in our center”. However, the authors ignored assessing Mohammad Alwardat, PT, PhD the methodological quality of included studies. Yazan Khraiwesh, MS Systematic reviews and meta-analysis are considered the ‘gold- Mohammad Etoom, PT, PhD standard’ form of evidence for assessing the effectiveness of School of Neuroscience therapeutic interventions. Assessment of methodological quality Faculty of Medicine and Surgery for eligible studies is an important step in systematic review. University of Rome “Tor Vergata” Inappropriate design of the clinical studies may cause a multiple Rome, Italy biases, such as selection, performance, attrition, detection, and 2 Physical Activity and Health Promotion reporting. In general, the reliability of the results of systematic Faculty of Medicine and Surgery review is affected if the authors did not avoid potential bias sources 2 University of Rome “Tor Vergata” of included studies. The aim of bias assessment in systematic Rome, Italy review is to discover the strengths and limitations of the included Physical Therapy Department studies, as well as, to assess the heterogeneity of included studies Al-Isra University and to conclude the level of evidence. Amman, Jordan The level of evidence which is concluded by systematic review is an important way to support future research and reinforce REFERENCES clinical practice. The scientist creates many tools which help the researchers to assess the methodological quality of clinical 1. Parravano DC, Ciampi DA, Fonoff ET, et al. Quality of life after motor cortex 4-6 stimulation: clinical results and systematic review of the literature. Neurosurgery. trials. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was designed by the 2018. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy060. [published online ahead of print] Cochrane Collaboration, and recommended for use in systematic 2. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interven- reviews of RCTs. In addition, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale is used tions; 2011. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org/. for non RCTs, particularly cohort and case-control studies. 3. Hartling L, Hamm M, Milne A, et al. Validity and Inter-Rater Reliability Testing of Quality Assessment Instruments. University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice The systematic review should provide an explicit and repro- Center: Rockville, 2012. ducible methodology. Thus, the systematic search should be in 4. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility an attempt to identify all studies that would meet the inclusion to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36(3):666-676 criteria. Indeed, this special structure requires the Methods 5. Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ. Scales section of a systematic review to be evaluated much like a to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther quantitative research study. The authors state that “A literature 2008;88(2):156-175 search was undertaken using the PubMed database for srticles”. 6. Alwardat M. Comments on: Safety of repeated sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation: a systematic review. Brain Stimul. 2018;11(3):658 However, they did not use Medical Subject Headings in the 7. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for search strategies. As recommended in the Cochrane Handbook assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, using subject headings Research Institute: Canada, 2011. in addition to keywords is a key point of searching for studies. Finally, the search string as reported in the review was “the 10.1093/neuros/nyy249 following key words: “MCS and pain and neurosurgery” and NEUROSURGERY VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | 2018 | 1 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/neurosurgery/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/neuros/nyy249/5025490 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 11 July 2018
Neurosurgery – Oxford University Press
Published: May 30, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera