You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editor’s column
JNIS spotlight: commissioned reviews
  1. Michael Chen
  1. Neurological Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Michael Chen, Neurological Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60612, USA; Michael_Chen{at}rush.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2022-020019

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Even in our specialized field of neurointerventional surgery, there has been continued recent growth in the volume of articles being published, journals being formed, and social media activity. Perhaps as a result, there is even more of a need now for curated, carefully written, expert topical reviews.

    The Journal of Neurointerventional Surgery (JNIS) actively solicits concise review articles that aim to organize, clarify, and provide insight into challenging but commonly encountered topics. Several of these have been among the most highly cited JNIS articles. We invite authors with a strong publication track record who can best compile and organize recent literature with the added value of expert insight. JNIS further adds value to these invited reviews by expediting through the peer review process, a free to access designation, and publishing online and in print with minimal latency. Our most recent impact factor of 8.572 adds additional visibility.

    Here we highlight six of the most recent JNIS invited reviews. Several more are already in the pipeline. These commissioned reviews partly reflect what JNIS views as topics of high scientific interest to the community and worthy of additional research efforts.

    Stroke thrombectomy perioperative anesthetic and hemodynamic management

    Despite being debated in meetings and the literature for over 10 years, the choice of anesthesia during stroke thrombectomy continues to be controversial. This includes not only whether general anesthesia (GA) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is preferable, but also blood pressure measurement/parameters/treatment options. Farag et al 1 provided an updated review on this topic. They concisely reviewed randomized controlled trials evaluating MAC versus GA, including the SIESTA (Sedation vs Intubation for Endovascular Stroke Treatment),2 ANSTROKE (Anesthesia During Stroke),3 and GOLIATH (General or Local Anesthesia in Intra Arterial Therapy)4 trials. Several meta-analyses based on these studies have since been performed which suggest GA being favored. Societies currently recommend that …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @dr_mchen

    • Contributors MC is the sole contributor.

    • Funding The author has not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.