World neurosurgery · 2026
Advancing Evidence Quality and Reproducibility in Endoscopic Endonasal Surgery for Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Systematic Review and Reporting Guideline.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Arend Rudolfh Batista, Garcia Miguel, Tapia Borges Kelvin Brian, Peroni Bruno Zilli, Lima Natan Lucca, Oliveira Gomes Daniel Eduardo, Campos Cardoso Leonardo Januario, Ferreira Marcio Yuri, Brito Herika Negri, Martini Vial Antonio Delacy, Formentin Cleiton, De Notaris Matteo, Agosti Edoardo, Roman Alex, Gago Guilherme, Ramina Ricardo, Jung Gustavo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) is the primary approach for pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNET); however, outcome reporting remains heterogeneous and inconsistent, limiting reproducibility, comparability, and evidence synthesis. We aimed to assess the reporting quality in EES-for-PitNET studies and develop a dedicated Reporting guideline.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to January 27, 2026. Original clinical studies (≥10 patients) reporting clinical, surgical, endocrinological, radiological, perioperative, or follow-up outcomes after endoscopic endonasal/transsphenoidal/transnasal surgery for PitNET were included. The reporting quality was assessed across nine domains: baseline characteristics, imaging and tumor features, definitions of key concepts, team characteristics, anesthetic protocol, surgical details, outcomes and adverse events, retreatment, and funding/conflicts of interest.
RESULTS: Thirty study-records comprising approximately 15,800 patients were included. Reporting deficiencies were identified across all domains. Age (93%) and sex (100%) were almost universally reported and the treatment modality was always defined (100%); however, comorbidities were fully detailed in only 10%, and a comprehensive anesthetic protocol was essentially absent (3%). Key terms were defined in 53%, intraoperative adverse-event classification in 17%, and all-cause and procedure-related mortality criteria in 0%. Surgeon's experience was reported in 63%, time from symptom onset to treatment in 3%, and retreatment frequency and indications in 17% and 27%, respectively. Based on these gaps we developed the Endoscopic Endonasal Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumor Reporting Guideline.
CONCLUSION: EES-for-PitNET literature demonstrates substantial reporting deficiencies that limit evidence reliability and synthesis. The proposed Reporting Guideline provides a structured framework to improve transparency, reproducibility, and comparability in future studies.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to January 27, 2026. Original clinical studies (≥10 patients) reporting clinical, surgical, endocrinological, radiological, perioperative, or follow-up outcomes after endoscopic endonasal/transsphenoidal/transnasal surgery for PitNET were included. The reporting quality was assessed across nine domains: baseline characteristics, imaging and tumor features, definitions of key concepts, team characteristics, anesthetic protocol, surgical details, outcomes and adverse events, retreatment, and funding/conflicts of interest.
RESULTS: Thirty study-records comprising approximately 15,800 patients were included. Reporting deficiencies were identified across all domains. Age (93%) and sex (100%) were almost universally reported and the treatment modality was always defined (100%); however, comorbidities were fully detailed in only 10%, and a comprehensive anesthetic protocol was essentially absent (3%). Key terms were defined in 53%, intraoperative adverse-event classification in 17%, and all-cause and procedure-related mortality criteria in 0%. Surgeon's experience was reported in 63%, time from symptom onset to treatment in 3%, and retreatment frequency and indications in 17% and 27%, respectively. Based on these gaps we developed the Endoscopic Endonasal Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumor Reporting Guideline.
CONCLUSION: EES-for-PitNET literature demonstrates substantial reporting deficiencies that limit evidence reliability and synthesis. The proposed Reporting Guideline provides a structured framework to improve transparency, reproducibility, and comparability in future studies.