Letter: Quality of Life After Motor Cortex Stimulation: Clinical Results and Systematic Review of the Literature

Letter: Quality of Life After Motor Cortex Stimulation: Clinical Results and Systematic Review of... 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 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Neurosurgery Oxford University Press

Letter: Quality of Life After Motor Cortex Stimulation: Clinical Results and Systematic Review of the Literature

Free
1 page

Loading next page...
1 Page
 
/lp/ou_press/letter-quality-of-life-after-motor-cortex-stimulation-clinical-results-42OoChdSGq
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons
ISSN
0148-396X
eISSN
1524-4040
D.O.I.
10.1093/neuros/nyy249
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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

Journal

NeurosurgeryOxford University Press

Published: May 30, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

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

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

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.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off