Dataset Information

Current knowledge on spinal meningiomas: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Meningiomas are primary central nervous system tumours that arise from both cranial and spinal meninges. Spinal meningiomas occur less frequently than their cranial counterparts and are consequently given less attention in the literature. Therefore, systematic studies are needed to summarise the current knowledge on spinal meningiomas, providing a solid evidence base for treatment strategies. This systematic review of the literature will therefore assess studies describing spinal meningiomas, their epidemiology, diagnostics, treatment and outcomes.

Methods and analysis

Electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science and Embase, will be searched using the keywords "spinal" and "meningioma". The search will be set to provide only English studies published after 2000 to avoid any conflicts regarding terminology and classification, as well as to reflect the current status. Case reports, editorials, letters and reviews will also be excluded. Reference lists of relevant records will also be searched. Identified studies will be screened for inclusion, by one reviewer in a first step and then three in the next step to decrease the risk of bias. The results will be categorised to allow for a structured summary of the outcomes and their evidence grade conforming to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Categories may include: epidemiology, histopathology, radiological diagnostics, surgery, complications, non-surgical or adjuvant treatments, disease outcomes and predictors, and lastly recurrence. This review will summarise the current knowledge on spinal meningiomas to allow for a better understanding of the disease and contribute to improve its management. For clinicians, the systematic collection and grading of available evidence may aid in decision making and for those seeking to further the scientific field, this review may help to identify areas where knowledge is currently lacking.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval was not required for our systematic review as it is based on existing publications. The results will be disseminated via submission for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

SUBMITTER: El-Hajj VG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9226977 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious, sometimes life-threatening complication that can occur following spine surgery. The incidence of VTE, and the optimal type and timing of thromboprophylaxis for this complication in elective spine surgery is a matter of debate.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review with the aim of clarifying the efficacy and adverse effects of mechanical and chemical prophylaxis for preventing thromboembolic complications in elective spine surgery for conditions other than trauma and malignant disease.Methods/designA search strategy of related articles up to March 2018 was designed and executed in Medline and Embase.Patientsadolescents (>10 years) and adults undergoing elective surgery for spinal deformity or degenerative disease (from C1 to S1).InterventionPerioperative mechanical and chemical thromboprophylaxis. Studies could be randomized controlled trials or observational studies that reported data on any relevant clinical outcomes.ResultsIn total, 2451 uniquecitations were identified and 35 studies were ultimately included in the systematic review. The overall mean incidence of complications was 3.7% for deep venous thrombosis, 0.0% for pulmonary embolism, and 3.7% for bleeding in chemoprophylaxis group; 2.9% for deep venous thrombosis, 0.4% for pulmonary embolism and 0.0% for bleeding in mechanoprophylaxis; and 0.7% for deep venous thrombosis, 0.1% for pulmonary embolism and 0.2% for bleeding in mixed prophylaxis group with no specific data on these rates for the type of patient and type and location of surgery. None of the articles retrieved provided information on the adolescent population.Discussion and conclusionsThe poor design and high variability among the studies regarding characteristics of study population, details of interventions, and definitions of outcomes, determines a low quality of the available evidence and limits the interpretation of the results. We were unable to identify a clear advantage of one type of thromboprophylaxis over the other, although there was an increased risk of bleeding with chemoprophylaxis, which could favor the use of mechanoprophylaxis in this scenario.