Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in neurosurgery part I: interpreting and critically appraising as a guide for clinical practice.

Neurosurgeons are inundated with the Herculean task to keep abreast with the rapid pace at which clinical research is proliferating. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have consequently surged in popularity because when executed properly, they constitute the highest level of evidence, and may save busy neurosurgeons many hours of combing the literature. Well-executed SRMAs may prove instructive for clinical practice, but poorly conducted reviews sow confusion and may potentially cause harm. Unfortunately, many SRMAs within neurosurgery are relatively lackluster in methodological rigor. When neurosurgeons apply the results of an SRMA to patient care, they should start by evaluating the extent to which the employed methods have likely protected against misleading results. The present article aims to educate the reader about how to interpret an SRMA, to assess the potential relevance of its results in the special context of the neurosurgical patient population.