Article Text


O-023 The Current State of Neurointerventional Surgery Research Highlights the Need for Collaboration
  1. K Fargen1,
  2. J Mocco2,
  3. A Rai3,
  4. J Hirsch4
  1. 1Neurosurgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC
  2. 2Neurosurgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY
  3. 3Radiology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV
  4. 4Interventional Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA


Introduction No studies have sought to provide a quantitative or qualitative critique of the research produced in the field of neurointerventional (NI) surgery. We designed a pilot study to analyze recent publications from the Journal of Neurointerventional Surgery (JNIS) to understand the current state of NI research and collaboration.

Methods We reviewed all JNIS Online First publications from February 25, 2015 to February 24, 2016. All publications including human or non-human research, systematic reviews, meta-analyzes or literature reviews were included; editorials and commentaries were excluded. For each publication, study design, number of patients, authors, and contributing centers and study subject were recorded. Level of evidence was defined for each study using a novel scale (Table 1).

Results A total of 206 JNIS research articles met inclusion criteria. The average number of centers and authors per study was 2.1 (standard deviation 1.6, range 1–10) and 6.8 (SD 2.9, range 1–17), respectively. Only 4% of published studies were prospective studies (Table 2). Twenty-eight percent of scientific research published featured patient series of 9 or less. Forty-seven percent of publications involved individuals from a single center, with the vast majority (87%) having collaboration of individuals from 3 centers or less (Table 3). While 256 distinct institutions from all over the world were represented, 66% of centers were represented in only a single publication. The majority of publications were categorized as poor quality (level 4 or 5) evidence (91%; Table 4).

View this table:
Abstract O-023 Table 1

Modified level of evidence scale for NI research

View this table:
Abstract O-023 Table 2

Types of studies

View this table:
Abstract O-023 Table 3

Number of centers represented in studies

View this table:
Abstract O-023 Table 4

Level of evidence of the research studies

Conclusions This pilot study designed to assess the quality of research and inter-institution collaboration suggests that most published NI research is of low quality with few contributing institutions. Observations from this study therefore support the need for collaborative, multicenter prospective databases of NI cases.

Disclosures K. Fargen: None. J. Mocco: None. A. Rai: None. J. Hirsch: None.

Statistics from

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.