You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Standards
Neurointerventional surveys between 2000 and 2023: a systematic review
  1. Salome Lou Bosshart1,2,
  2. Alexander Stebner1,3,
  3. Charlotte Sabine Weyland4,
  4. Răzvan Alexandru Radu5,
  5. Johanna Maria Ospel1
  6. On behalf of the EYMINT research and survey committee
  1. 1 Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  2. 2 University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
  3. 3 Department of Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Münsterlingen, Münsterlingen, Thurgau, Switzerland
  4. 4 Department of Neuroradiology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
  5. 5 Department of Neuroradiology, Hospital Gui de Chauliac, Montpellier, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Johanna Maria Ospel; johanna.ospel{at}ucalgary.ca

Abstract

Background Surveys are increasingly used in neurointervention to gauge physicians’ and patients’ attitudes, practice patterns, and ‘real-world’ treatment strategies, particularly in conditions for which few, or no evidence-based, recommendations exist. While survey-based studies can provide valuable insights into real-world problems and management strategies, there is an inherent risk of bias.

Objective To assess key themes, sample characteristics, response metrics, and report frequencies of quality indicators of neurointerventional surveys.

Methods A systematic review compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was performed. The PubMed database was searched for neurointerventional surveys published between 2000 and 2023. Survey topics, design, respondent characteristics, and survey quality criteria suggested by the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) were assessed and described using descriptive statistics. Response rates and numbers of participants were further assessed for their dependence on sample characteristics and survey methodologies.

Results A total of 122 surveys were included in this analysis. The number of surveys published each year increased steeply between 2000 (n=1) and 2023 (n=14). The most common survey topics were stroke (51/122, 41.8%) and aneurysm treatment (49/122, 40.2%). The median response rate was 58.5% (IQR=30.4–86.3), with a median number of respondents of 79 (IQR=50–201). Sixty-eight of 122 (55.7%) surveys published the questionnaire used for data collection. Only a subset of studies reported response rates (n=89, 73%), data collection time period (n=91, 74.6%), and strategies to prevent duplicate responses (n=57, 46.7%).

Conclusion Surveys are increasingly used by neurointerventional researchers, particularly to assess real-world practice patterns in endovascular stroke and aneurysm treatment. Adapting best-practice guidelines like the CROSS checklist might improve homogeneity and quality in neurointerventional survey research.

  • Aneurysm
  • Intervention
  • Stroke
  • Standards

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2024-022298

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.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • X @MDStebnerAl, @johanna_ospel

    • Contributors Study conception and design: JMO, SLB, AS, CSW, RAR. Data collection: SLB, AS. Analysis and interpretation of results: JMO, SLB, AS. Manuscript preparation: SLB, JMO. Guarantor: JMO.

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

    • Competing interests CSW and SLB have received travel grants to attend conferences. AS has received a stipend from the Swiss Society of Radiology for his research fellowship.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.