ABSTRACT
Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) with increased intracranial pressure (ICP) require time‐sensitive surgical intervention. In non‐metropolitan areas, neurosurgeons are often unavailable to provide definitive treatment. Therapeutic surgical intervention by a non‐neurosurgeon, for example, general surgeons, is a potential alternative; however, the feasibility and utility of non‐specialist intervention are poorly defined within the literature. A scoping review was conducted within Scopus, Emcare, MEDLINE and CINAHL for original literature about emergency neurosurgical interventions performed by a non‐neurosurgeon for TBIs in non‐metropolitan settings without prompt access to a neurosurgeon. This search yielded 20 studies that included over 2000 surgical interventions in 13 countries. General surgeons most commonly performed the procedures on patients with computed tomography (CT)‐confirmed lesions. Mortality rates were heterogeneous, ranging from 0% to 67% in small cohorts with variable follow‐up periods. Mortality was consistently higher in patients with subdural haematomas (SDHs) opposed to extradural haematomas (EDHs). Morbidity was measured in 13 studies, commonly via the Glasgow outcome scale (GOS). Most studies had access to remote neurosurgical advice via telehealth. Overall, these 20 studies provided incomplete information regarding mortality rates and functional outcomes from this alternative practise. The present study concludes that emergency decompression by a non‐neurosurgeon for patients with severe TBIs may be lifesaving for patients without timely access to a neurosurgical centre. Our study further highlights the need for further research, training and resource allocation, including strengthening telecommunication pathways, to support patient access to lifesaving neurosurgical interventions in these environments, and ultimately address surgical inequalities in rural and remote regions of the world.
Keywords: brain injuries, decompressive craniectomy, emergency medical services, hospitals, neurosurgery, rural, traumatic
1. Introduction
Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with increasing incidence. Non‐metropolitan populations are burdened by higher incidences and worse outcomes from TBIs relative to metropolitan populations, influenced by delays to accessing care and inadequate resources [1, 2]. A severe TBI is defined as a Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score of less than nine and includes patients with significant extradural haemorrhages (EDHs) and subdural haemorrhages (SDHs), for which surgical decompression is the recommended definitive management [3]. If surgical decompression occurs within 4 h of hospital presentation, studies have shown that mortality is significantly reduced [4, 5]. However, in non‐metropolitan areas, neurosurgeons are often not available within recommended timeframes [6]. Non‐metropolitan locations have variable definitions, with Australia identifying these regions by having a population of less than 100,000, restricted access to goods and services, and distance from a major city. Due to the smaller populations served, non‐metropolitan hospitals may not have specialist staff and infrastructure; thus, patients in need of this care are often transferred to larger hospitals [7]. The Neurosurgical Society of Australasia guidelines recommend that if patients are more than 2 h from a neurosurgical centre and have clinical or computed tomography (CT) signs of increased intracranial pressure (ICP), then non‐neurosurgeons should perform surgical decompression of TBIs [8]. Digital instructions and telehealth support can assist local doctors in performing these lifesaving procedures, with real‐time virtual support from neurosurgeons [6]. No systematic reviews to date are known to examine non‐neurosurgeons' performance of neurosurgical interventions for patients with increased ICP secondary to a TBI in these non‐metropolitan settings. Given the scarcity of data on this topic, this scoping review aims to evaluate the evidence of non‐neurosurgeons performing neurosurgical interventions for acute TBI management in non‐metropolitan settings that do not have a neurosurgical specialty. Identifying evidence of the success of these interventions by non‐neurosurgeons may highlight the need for and importance of providing non‐metropolitan centres and staff with the capability and resources to surgically decompress TBIs.
2. Method
2.1. Scoping Review
A scoping review registered with Open Science Framework (osf.io/4mepc) was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Appendix S1) [9].
2.2. Search Strategy
All original research that explores therapeutic neurosurgical interventions by a non‐neurosurgeon for acute TBIs that was published in the searched databases was included. Literature searches were performed on Scopus, Emcare, MEDLINE and CINAHL for publications available to 31 May 2024, using subject headings and keywords relating to TBI (population), neurosurgical intervention (concept) and non‐metropolitan (context). Under the non‐metropolitan umbrella, this paper encapsulates regional, rural and remote hospitals without access to a neurosurgeon. The full subject headings and keywords used are reported in Appendix S2. Reference lists of all included studies were reviewed to identify four additional relevant studies. Search results were exported to a reference managing database (EndNote). Articles were excluded if they did not include all of the following criteria: a surgical treatment of acute TBI performed by a non‐neurosurgeon in a non‐metropolitan context. As per Figure 1, articles that were conference abstracts, reviews, letters to the editor, case studies, not in English and without full text availability were also excluded.
FIGURE 1.

PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process. CINAHL, cumulative index of nursing and allied health; EBSCO, Elton B. Stephens Company.
2.3. Study Selection
After removing duplicates, two investigators (L.B. and E.J.) independently screened titles and abstracts to identify eligible articles. Subsequently, full texts were reviewed by the same investigators, with a third investigator (C.G.) providing input on any inconsistencies in the screening.
2.4. Data Extraction
Data extracted included the dates, country, setting, population, study design, types of pathology treated, number of interventions performed, types of interventions if available, use of imaging, specialty of the operating clinician, mortality and other major findings related to patient outcomes.
2.5. Quality Assessment
Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD) for non‐randomised studies with different designs [10]. Two authors (L.B. and E.J.) agreed on the grading of cumulative criteria for each article, with input from a third author (C.G.) as required. Results were totalled as a percentage of the maximum score to allow comparison across different methodologies. The result interpretation was that greater than 75% is considered high quality, 50%–75% good quality, 25%–50% moderate quality and less than 25% is poor quality [11].
3. Results
3.1. Study Characteristics and Quality Assessment
A total of 1236 potentially relevant records were retrieved from the search strategy, and after removal of 242 duplicates, 994 underwent title and abstract screening (Figure 1). Totally, 193 met inclusion for full text review, with nine articles unable to be retrieved. After applying the eligibility criteria, 16 articles were included for analysis. Reference checks of these articles identified four more relevant articles, resulting in 20 that underwent final analysis. Revision of the search strategy in response to these four additional articles was not performed, because broadening the search context to “neurosurgery” instead of specific neurosurgical procedures, or the population to exclude the “rural and remote” heading yielded many results that were not relevant to our question. Table 1 summarises the studies' characteristics. The included literature consisted of 17 case series and three surveys. The QATSDD scores reported in Table 2 found that two articles were high quality, 11 were good quality, six were moderate quality and one was low quality.
TABLE 1.
Included study characteristics and summary.
| Study (lead author and date) | Country | Setting | Timeframe | Population | Design | Total patients a (n): total interventions b (n) | Type of interventions (n if available) | Major findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anshu 2023 [12] | India | Single peripheral military hospital | August 2020 to December 2022 |
Aged 5–88 years. CT confirmed TBI and findings of secondary intracerebral injury or clinical signs of deterioration |
Retrospective case series | 23:23 |
|
|
| Attebury 2006 [13] | Tanzania | Single centre | January 2006 to September 2007 | Patients receiving neurosurgical intervention for any indication at the hospital by either a neurosurgeon or general surgeon | Retrospective case series |
18:NS |
Overall rates
c
:
|
|
| Bishop 2006 [14] | Australia | Multiple centres | 1997 to 2001 | General surgeons (n = 161) | Survey | NS:~600 |
|
|
| Deskit 2022 [15] | India | Multicentre | November 2017 to November 2020 | Patients with a TBI, aged 33–77 years old. | Case series | 7:8 |
|
|
| Fischerstrom 2014 [16] | Sweden | Multicentre | 2005–2010 | Patients referred to the neuro‐intensive care unit in Uppsala after acute evacuation of intracranial haematomas in the regional hospitals | Retrospective case series | 49:75 |
|
|
| Gilligan 2017 [17] | Australia | Single centre | January 2000 to January 2013 | Patients admitted to a neurosurgical hospital from a rural centre | Retrospective case series | 9:9 | Burr holes and craniectomies |
|
| Havill 1998 [18] | New Zealand | Single centre | July 1987 to July 1997 | Patients admitted to ICU. | Retrospective case series | 151:151 | Burr holes and craniectomy |
|
| Howard 2020 [19] | Ireland | Single centre | Not specfied | 2 patients with CT confirmed TBI, aged 32 and 31 years old |
Retrospective case series |
2:2 |
|
|
| Hu 2022 [20] | Cambodia | Single centre | January 2015 to December 2016 | TBI receiving emergency surgical intervention | Prospective case series. | 235:235 |
|
|
| Kelly 2024 [21] | Australia | Multicentre | January 2001 to December 2022 | Patients who underwent an emergency surgical intervention at Queensland hospitals without an onsite neurosurgical service | Retrospective cohort study | 22:23 |
|
|
| Leitgeb 2012 [22] | Austria, Croatia and Slovakia | Multicentre | January 2001 to December 2005 | Patients admitted to ICUs with a GCS of ≤ 8 |
Prospective case series |
120:148 |
|
|
| Luck 2015 [23] | Australia | Single centre | January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2013 | All emergency neurosurgery patients | Prospective case series | 161:195 |
|
|
| Raman 2023 [24] | Australia | Multicentre | n/a | Surgical theatre nurses or service directors from rural and regional Queensland hospitals with a CT scanner and are not within 2 h of a tertiary centre | Survey | n/a | n/a |
|
| Rinker 1998 [25] | United States of America | Single centre | January 1, 1991, to April 1 1997 | Patients with TBI deemed too unstable for transport before decompression | Prospective case series | 8:8 | 8 craniectomies |
|
| Simpson 1984 [26] | Australia | Single site | August 29, 1981 to February 26, 1982 | Consecutive patients with head or spinal injuries transferred to the major hospital from rural and regional centres | Prospective case series | 3:3 | 3 craniotomies |
|
| Treacy 2005 [27] | Australia | Single centre | January 1992 and June 2004 | Patients who underwent an emergency neurosurgical procedure | Prospective case series | 124:147 |
|
|
| Umo 2023 [28] | Papua New Guinea | Multicentre |
1 December 2018 and 30 April 2022 |
Patients with moderate to severe TBI | Retrospective case series | 39:39 |
|
|
| Visvanathan 1994 [29] | Malaysia | Single‐centre | n/a | Severe head injuries during the 29‐month study period | Retrospective case series | 40:46 | Craniotomy or craniectomy. |
|
| Winkler 2010 [30] | Tanzania | Single centre | 2003 |
Patients with neurologic or neurosurgical disorders |
Prospective case series | 7:7 |
|
|
| Yusof 2021 [31] | Australia | Multicentre | n/a | Nurse unit manager or general surgical registrars of regional and rural hospitals that provide surgical services in New South Wales. | Survey | n/a | n/a |
|
Note: All included studies were examined for their setting, timeframe, population, design, number of patients operated on and the total interventions by a non‐neurosurgeon, type of interventions, whether patients received CT scans, the professional who performed the surgery, and patient outcomes defined as mortality and neurological measures at the latest defined period.
Abbreviation: NS, not specified.
Receiving operative intervention by a non‐neurosurgeon.
By a non‐neurosurgeon.
Did not specify whether procedures were performed by the general surgeon or the neurosurgeon.
Data obtained from an unpublished correction.
TABLE 2.
Quality assessment of included articles via QATSDD.
| Article criteria | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | Total score | % a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anshu [12] | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | — | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 2 | 22 | 52.4 |
| Attebury [13] | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | — | 3 | 1 | — | 0 | 2 | 24 | 57 |
| Bishop [14] | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | — | 3 | 3 | — | 0 | 3 | 30 | 71 |
| Deskit [15] | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | — | 2 | 0 | — | 0 | 1 | 18 | 42.9 |
| Fischerstrom [16] | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | — | 3 | 1 | — | 1 | 3 | 30 | 71.4 |
| Gilligan [17] | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | 16 | 38.1 |
| Havill [18] | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | — | 2 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | 20 | 47.6 |
| Howard [19] | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | 8 | 19 |
| Hu [20] | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | — | 3 | 1 | — | 1 | 3 | 32 | 76.2 |
| Kelly [21] | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | — | 3 | 3 | — | 1 | 2 | 31 | 73.8 |
| Leitgeb [22] | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | — | 2 | 3 | — | 0 | 2 | 30 | 71.4 |
| Luck [23] | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | — | 2 | 3 | — | 1 | 2 | 31 | 73.8 |
| Raman [24] | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | — | 2 | 2 | — | 2 | 2 | 29 | 69 |
| Rinker [25] | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | — | 2 | 0 | — | 1 | 1 | 21 | 50 |
| Simpson [26] | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | — | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | 17 | 40.5 |
| Treacy [27] | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | — | 3 | 3 | — | 0 | 1 | 32 | 76.2 |
| Umo [28] | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | — | 3 | 1 | — | 0 | 2 | 27 | 64.3 |
| Visvanathan [29] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | — | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | 11 | 26.2 |
| Winkler [30] | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | — | 2 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | 18 | 42.9 |
| Yusof [31] | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | — | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 1 | 24 | 57.1 |
Note: The quality assessment was independently conducted and agreed upon by L.B. and E.J. The corresponding numerical criteria and scoring system of QATSDD is explained in Appendix S3.
Article's score divided by total possible score (42) × 100.
3.2. Setting
The studies were set across 13 countries, with only one completed in multiple countries [22]. Eight studies were conducted in Australia [14, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30], two each in India [12, 15], and Tanzania [13, 30], with single projects in Ireland [19], Cambodia [20], United States of America [25], Papua New Guinea [28], Sweden [16], New Zealand [18], and Malaysia [29]. All were set in non‐metropolitan hospitals remote from neurosurgical centres, hence justifying intervention by non‐neurosurgeons.
Three studies defined the distance in kilometres to definitive neurosurgical care from the non‐metropolitan treating hospital [15, 18, 27]. Distances to the closest neurosurgical centre significantly ranged, being 130 km from Waitkato [18], 435 km from Leh to Srinagar [15], to 2600 km from Darwin (which had no neurosurgical centre within the state), to Adelaide [27]. Following surgical intervention, seven studies transferred patients to a neurosurgical centre [17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26], six studies managed patients onsite until discharge [13, 14, 15, 27, 28, 29, 30], three studies only transferred complex cases [14, 22, 23], and two studies did not define the location of post‐operative management [12, 20]. Of the studies that continued management onsite, two cited state‐wide resource limitations [13, 27], and one reported geographical barriers as reasons for not transferring [15].
3.3. Interventions
The types of procedures explored included burr holes, craniectomies, craniotomies, extraventricular drains (EVDs) and skull fracture elevations. Indications included EDHs, SDHs, intraventricular bleeds with/without obstructive hydrocephalus and skull fractures. Of the 18 included interventional studies, burr holes were performed in 13, craniectomies in 12, craniotomies in 10 and ventricular drains in three. In the largest sample size, which approximated 600, the most common procedure was craniotomies (41%) [14]. Pre‐operative CT scans were performed in 65% of interventional studies. In the five that did not report on the use of CT scans prior to surgery, three were in Australia [14, 26, 27], two were in Tanzania [13, 30], and one in Papua New Guinea [28]. Two of these sites reported that they did not have access to CT [26, 30], whilst the remaining three did not specify [13, 14, 27].
3.4. Clinicians and Their Support
In the 18 interventional studies, the majority (14) had procedures performed by general surgeons, with a mixture of an Emergency Specialist, Trauma Surgeon and unspecified clinicians in the remaining four articles [19, 22, 26, 30]. Remote clinicians accessed neurosurgical advice to varying extents in 11 studies [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27]. Neurosurgeon involvement ranged from providing approval prior to all interventions [16, 25], delivering advice via telehealth [22], which in one study was utilised only in complex cases [18], and observing procedures with live transmitted guidance as required [14, 25]. One study assessed rural doctors' access to telecommunication with neurosurgeons, with 61%–81% of doctors stating that they ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ experienced delays in receiving urgent neurosurgical tele‐advice [14].
3.5. Patient Outcomes
Patient outcomes were reported heterogeneously, with measures including mortality, improvement on CT and functional outcomes. In‐hospital mortality and follow‐up mortality were often documented without measured time periods. Mortality rates ranged from 0% (two small studies with two and seven patients respectively) [19, 30], through to 67% in a study with three patients [26]. Most studies did not define patients' causes of death. Of those that did, one study reported that TBI was the cause of death in all nine patients [16]. Others reported mortality aetiologies related to surgery, including intraoperative cardiac arrest [15], anaesthesia, possible sepsis and those unrelated, including pneumonia [14]. One study performed statistical sub‐analyses of the mortality rate data against several variables, finding reduced mortality in patients with reactive pupils (OR: 0.02, 95% CI: 0.00–0.17, p = 0.0005) and a higher GCS (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.63–0.95, p = 0.0147) [28]. Five articles comparing mortality against TBI type found increased mortality in SDHs compared to EDHs [20, 21, 23, 25, 27]. Notably, Treacy et al. [27] reported a 3‐month mortality of 44% for acute SDHs compared to 9% in EDHs. Two studies compared patient mortality following neurosurgeon to non‐neurosurgeon intervention and found no statistical difference [13, 22]. Two studies measured operative success with repeated CT scans, with radiological improvement ranging from 55% to 82% in most interventions, except for burr holes, which showed no changes [16, 21].
Post‐surgical functional outcomes were described in 14 articles. The Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) was used in eight studies [17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29], with follow‐up periods ranging from discharge [21], a median of 3.6 years [25], and unspecified in two [17, 22]. The Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) was used in two articles [12, 16]. Of the other studies, non‐specific comments such ‘cognitively normal’ [19], ‘neurological sequelae’ [30], and ‘no motor sensory deficit’, ‘neuropsychiatric complication’ and ‘minimal motor deficit’ [15] were used.
3.6. Complications
Post‐operative complications were variably recorded over inconsistent intervals and with limited details. Ten of the interventional articles described post‐operative complications, with rebleeds requiring reoperation being the most common [12, 13, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29]. Multiple studies noted that patients required re‐operation due to patient deterioration, by re‐opening the site to perform further decompression by using irrigation and suction. This was performed either by the general surgeon prior to tranfer [15, 27], during inter‐hospital transfer within an ambulance [19], upon arrival with the neurosurgeon [21], or did not specify the setting [16, 22, 29]. Rates of neurosurgeon re‐operation ranged from 0% in those who survived [12], to 100% in a small study of two patients [19]. One study comparing a trauma surgeon to a neurosurgeon found higher rates of re‐operation in trauma surgeons (23.3% compared to 12.0%, p = 0.012). It is unclear if patients requiring reoperation have a higher mortality (41.2% vs. 39.9%; p = 0.88) [22]. Post‐operative complications increased patients' risk of death (OR: 5.25, p = 0.0133) [28].
3.7. Preparedness
The three included surveys examined facilities' preparation for neurosurgical intervention by non‐neurosurgeons, in terms of hospitals having the appropriate equipment for procedures and doctors' self‐reported confidence. In the 56 non‐metropolitan New South Wales' hospitals surveyed, 41% had the necessary surgical equipment [31]. In a similar study, 42% of responding non‐neurosurgical hospitals in Queensland were equipped to perform an emergency craniectomy [24]. In the past decade, 20% and 19.2% of the respective hospitals had used the equipment [24, 31]. Rural Surgeons' confidence to perform a burr hole increased with distance from a neurosurgical centre (p = 0.015) [14].
4. Discussion
This scoping review examined the practise of non‐neurosurgeons performing emergent neurosurgical intervention for acute TBIs in nonmetropolitan environments. From 20 studies, 17 of which were interventional and included over 2000 surgical interventions in 13 countries, it was most commonly general surgeons performing burr holes, craniectomies and craniotomies on patients with CT‐confirmed lesions. The surveys met inclusion criteria and provided valuable insight about the procedure's retrospective frequency and logistics of its implementation, including equipment availability.
Resourcing challenges were a theme in the included studies. Nearly half of the studies were in low‐income countries, [32] where the largest barriers included costs of care, lack of equipment, inadequate health infrastructure and limited access to neurosurgeons [33]. The extent of this is exemplified in one Indian study, where the surgeon used personal funds to purchase haemostatic agents for surgery to overcome this barrier [15]. In high‐income countries like Australia, large distances and retrieval times challenged the provision of timely neurosurgical care. A Western Australian study reported a median transfer time for major rural trauma cases transported to the major trauma hospital of 9.2 h [34], which significantly exceeds national recommendations for TBIs to reach a neurosurgeon within 2 h of injury [8]. Despite healthcare in Australia being well funded, resource availability was another logistical challenge to non‐neurosurgical centres providing surgical intervention for TBIs, with less than half of the responding hospitals in both Australian surveys having appropriate emergency neurosurgical equipment [24, 31]. Despite this, non‐neurosurgeons' confidence to perform a decompression increased with distance from a neurosurgical centre [14], likely reflecting the resilience of remote centres to the tyranny of distance.
General and trauma surgeons performed most of the surgical interventions. Two studies did not define the qualifications of the medical doctors [26, 28], and one confirmed an Emergency Physician [19]. Qualified surgeons performing time‐critical decompression in non‐metropolitan centres is not a surprising result, but the few studies where other clinicians were required to operate is notable. In Australia, most non‐metropolitan facilities' senior staffing consists of a combination of Emergency Physicians, Rural Generalists and General Practitioners, as well as specialty registrars and International Medical Graduates. Currently, only the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (ACRRM) requires its Fellows to perform burr holes [35, 36, 37, 38]. However, the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) and Prehospital and Retrieval Medicine (PHRM) requires its graduates to complete resuscitative thoracotomies [35, 36], which is arguably more complex than a burr hole. Of note, ACRRM and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) do not require their fellows to have that skill [35, 38]. Whilst case reports were omitted from this review, various articles describe the potential feasibility of non‐surgeons performing emergent decompression for severe TBIs. Two case reports at different hospitals without onsite neurosurgical services described Emergency Physicians utilising an intraosseous needle for trephination to facilitate their patient's recovery without neurological deficit [39, 40]. Similarly, a General Practitioner on a remote island in Japan successfully performed a burr hole using a makeshift device [41]. With appropriate training, equipment and governance, there may be a role for General Practitioners, Rural Generalists, Emergency Physicians and PHRM specialists performing decompression of severe TBIs in emergent situations. With distance from neurosurgical facilities identified as a driver for non‐neurosurgeons performing interventions, in Australasia, these specialists are likely to be with the patient earlier, and when timely intervention may improve outcomes, training, equipping and supporting those specialists may save lives.
A recurrent theme within the literature was remote neurosurgical support provided to the non‐neurosurgeons. Telehealth infrastructure facilitated CT transmission, live audio and sometimes video calls [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27]. Telehealth use in Australasian healthcare has rapidly expanded over recent years [42]. With its increased presence and use, telemedicine for neurosurgical consultation in emergencies is a life‐saving, time‐efficient and cost‐effective recommendation from the World Society of Emergency Surgery [43]. The majority of the Australian rural surgeons surveyed reported that they were able to access remote neurosurgical support in emergency settings [24, 31]. Given the benefits of neurosurgeons supporting doctors in remote locations, it is also important to establish and maintain a high‐functioning telehealth system to deliver the best outcomes for patients with severe TBIs.
Over 2000 procedures were described across the 18 unique interventional studies. The most common interventions were burr holes, followed by craniectomies and craniotomies. A level IIA recommendation in severe TBI management is for a large frontotemporal decompressive craniectomy to reduce mortality and improve neurologic outcomes [44]. Burr holes can be considered a simplified alternative for a decompressive craniectomy, particularly in under‐resourced hospitals [45], reflected by their higher prevalence in this review. In the one study that compared outcomes between burr holes and craniectomies, burr holes were considered less efficacious [21]. Whilst burr holes were the most common procedure done, likely due to their simplicity compared to other procedures, their efficacy compared to other approaches is unclear. Notably, no studies compared a burr hole by a non‐neurosurgeon against transfer and delayed access to a neurosurgeon. Whilst formal decompression by a neurosurgeon remains the gold standard, a burr hole performed several hours earlier by a local clinician can relieve raised ICP in severe TBIs to optimise patient outcomes.
All neurosurgical interventions were performed for EDHs, SDHs, intraventricular bleeds and skull fractures. In most studies, a CT scan was performed prior to surgery. Three studies did not specify whether it was used [13, 14, 27]; however, it is likely that patients were imaged to determine the TBI type and guide the need for emergent intervention. Two studies did not have access to a CT scanner so relied on clinical signs of deterioration to indicate the need for intervention [26, 30]. A CT scan is recommended prior to neurosurgical intervention because without it, there is increased risk of inaccurate localisation of the pathology [46]. Although an Australian study reported that eight out of the 11 responding remote hospitals had access to 24‐h CT, intensive care unit and ability to care for ventilated patients, this survey was specifically sent to surgeons, and facilities staffed with surgeons are likely to have these resources [14]. In our analysis, given the high proportion of the included articles that presented interventions performed by surgeons, it is therefore unsurprising that most had a CT performed prior. Those in non‐metropolitan Australia have significantly reduced access to radiological services, with those in rural and remote Australian towns often lacking access to CT [47]. Waiting for a CT scan may delay critical interventions with worse outcomes; however, this needs to be balanced against performing an invasive procedure without confirmed lesions. The Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for ‘the Management of Acute Neurotrauma in Rural and Remote Locations’ recommends commencing burr hole exploration of suspected traumatic intracranial haemorrhages by local medical officers if a patient is deteriorating and transfer to a neurosurgeon is unavailable within 2 h [8]. This practise was implemented by Simpson et al. [26] with mortality in two out of three patients. Contrastingly, all three patients who had burr holes without prior imaging for SDH survived in the report by Winkler et al. [30]. Limited literature exists about neurosurgical procedures on TBI patients with clinically raised ICP without prior CT. Research is needed to explore the need and feasibility versus potential risks of surgical interventions for TBI in regions without a CT.
Patient‐centred outcomes were inconsistently reported. Mortality and multiple measures of morbidity were presented, but often incompletely variably. Mortality rates varied between different studies, but did not exceed 67% [26]. Patients with SDHs had a greater mortality than EDHs [20, 21, 23, 25, 27], consistent with existing literature from neurosurgeon‐performed interventions of these injuries [48]. The two studies that compared neurosurgeons to non‐specialist surgeons found no statistical difference in mortality [13, 22]. There was minimal sub‐analyses of mortality influences, but variables reported included GCS on presentation, haemorrhage severity on CT, and patient comorbidities [12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 28]. Significant variables included pre‐injury warfarin use [16], remote geographical location, and time from injury to operation exceeding 24 h [23]. The latter two support efforts to identify and instigate system improvements that could lead to expedited decompression of severe TBI. Functional outcomes were reported over variable timeframes, potentially underestimating the benefits of non‐neurosurgeons performing emergent decompression since TBI patients' functional outcomes can improve 12 months following their injury [49]. The inconsistent reporting across the included literature makes interpretation of the mortality and morbidity benefits challenging, and future research should include consistent and established measures. Similarly, the heterogeneity in the study designs and small sample sizes makes it unfeasible to determine whether patient outcomes have improved over time with potential advancements in care.
Our study has several limitations. Many studies had small sample sizes, reducing the statistical significance and reliability of findings [50]. Including retrospective designs limited the completeness and accuracy of the data. Despite this, 65% of articles were considered ‘good’ or ‘reasonable’ quality using the QATSDD measure. Larger sample sizes and prospective designs in future research would enhance the quality of evidence. The research included both high‐income and low‐income countries, with the differing resources and staff training likely influencing patient outcomes. The literature also spans 39 years, with more recent studies likely to have greater access to neurosurgical resources, telecommunication services and faster patient transfer networks. However, despite medical advances, a recent literature review reported that patient outcomes have not significantly improved following craniectomy for a TBI historically [51]; thus, the timeframe of included studies is not expected to bias our results. Whilst remote location is an important factor in this study, very few projects clearly defined the non‐metropolitan hospitals' location, supporting facilities and patient transfer services sufficiently for this to be described and discussed. Despite reasonable efforts including reference checks to find all applicable articles and reviewing additional terms in articles identified, it is possible that relevant articles have been missed. Leading causes of health‐related literature not being published include negative findings or statistically insignificant results [52]. This potential publication bias can lead to poor replicability of results and insufficient conclusions in literature reviews [53].
5. Conclusion
Emergency neurosurgical intervention by a non‐specialist doctor for patients with severe TBIs may be lifesaving for patients without timely access to a neurosurgical centre. The existing literature focuses on general surgeons performing burr holes on patients with a CT‐confirmed EDH and SDH in settings remote from neurosurgical care, but the mortality and morbidity benefits are unclear. This practise appears to be feasible; however, further efforts are required to develop the capacity of non‐neurosurgical facilities to perform these procedures, by strengthening telehealth networks and providing appropriate equipment resourcing. The approach of non‐neurosurgeons performing surgical interventions on severe TBIs could also apply to specialists on aeromedical retrievals, where long delays are commonplace. Further research is urgently required to examine typical timeframes for retrieving TBI patients from non‐metropolitan areas. If timely neurosurgical care is unobtainable, our current study suggests that non‐neurosurgeons performing surgical interventions for these patients may be the solution to providing the lifesaving, time‐critical care.
Author Contributions
Conception and design initiated by C.G. Research question, methods, data collection, results interpretation and manuscript writing completed by L.B. and C.G. Data analysis by L.B., E.J. and C.G. Article drafted and revised critically for intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published by L.B., C.G. and G.D.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Supporting information
Appendix S1. PRSIMA extension for scoping reviews checklist.
Appendix S2. Search strategy.
Appendix S3. QATSDD criteria and scoring [10].
Acknowledgements
This manuscript contributed to L.B.'s honours degree for her Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery. Special thanks to Stephen Anderson, a James Cook University librarian, for his guidance on the literature search. Open access publishing was facilitated by Townsville University Hospital library. Open access publishing facilitated by James Cook University, as part of the Wiley ‐ James Cook University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
References
- 1. de Souza J., Dobson G., Lee C., and Letson H., “Epidemiology and Outcomes of Head Trauma in Rural and Urban Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” 2023. medRxiv, 10.1101/2023.10.22.23297363. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 2. Maas A. I. R., Menon D. K., Manley G. T., et al., “Traumatic Brain Injury: Progress and Challenges in Prevention, Clinical Care, and Research,” Lancet Neurology 21 (2022): 1004–1060, 10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00309-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Vella M. A., Crandall M. L., and Patel M. B., “Acute Management of Traumatic Brain Injury,” Surgical Clinics of North America 97 (2017): 1015–1030, 10.1016/j.suc.2017.06.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Kim Y. J., “The Impact of Time From ED Arrival to Surgery on Mortality and Hospital Length of Stay in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury,” Journal of Emergency Nursing 37 (2011): 328–333, 10.1016/j.jen.2010.04.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Matsushima K., Inaba K., Siboni S., et al., “Emergent Operation for Isolated Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Does Time Matter?,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 79, no. 5 (2015): 838–842, 10.1097/TA.0000000000000719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Upadhyayula P. S., Yue J. K., Yang J., Birk H. S., and Ciacci J. D., “The Current State of Rural Neurosurgical Practice: An International Perspective,” Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice 9 (2018): 123–131, 10.4103/jnrp.jnrp_273_17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Parliament of Australia , “Chapter 2–Health Service Delivery: Regional, Rural and Remote Australia,” 2004, https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/community_affairs/completed_inquiries/2004‐07/pats/report/c02.
- 8. Reilly P., Guazzo E., McCulloch G., et al., The Management of Acute Neurotrauma in Rural and Remote Locations, 3rd ed. (Neurosurgical Society of Australia, 2009), https://www.surgeons.org/‐/media/Project/RACS/surgeons‐org/files/position‐papers/pos_2009‐9‐14_management_of_acute_neurotrauma_in_rural_and_remote_locations.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 9. Tricco A. C., Lillie E., Zarin W., et al., “PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR): Checklist and Explanation,” Annals of Internal Medicine 169 (2018): 467–473, 10.7326/M18-0850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Sirriyeh R., Lawton R., Gardner P., and Armitage G., “Reviewing Studies With Diverse Designs: The Development and Evaluation of a New Tool,” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 18 (2012): 746–752, 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01662.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Harrison R., Jones B., Gardner P., and Lawton R., “Quality Assessment With Diverse Studies (QuADS): An Appraisal Tool for Methodological and Reporting Quality in Systematic Reviews of Mixed‐ or Multi‐Method Studies,” BMC Health Services Research 21 (2021): 144, 10.1186/s12913-021-06122-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Anshu A., Singh V., Bhardwaj A., Sundaravadhanan S., Mishra J. P., and Gowda H. M. P., “Life‐Saving Neurosurgery for Trauma Under Telemedicine Guidance at a Peripheral Military Hospital,” Indian Journal of Surgery 86 (2023): 774–780, 10.1007/s12262-023-03975-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Attebery J. E., Mayegga E., Louis R. G., Chard R., Kinasha A., and Ellegala D. B., “Initial Audit of a Basic and Emergency Neurosurgical Training Program in Rural Tanzania,” World Neurosurgery 73 (2010): 290–295, 10.1016/j.wneu.2010.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Bishop C. V. and Drummond K. J., “Rural Neurotrauma in Australia: Implications for Surgical Training,” ANZ Journal of Surgery 76 (2006): 53–59, 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2006.03642.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Deskit P., “Case Series of Neurotrauma Managed by General Surgeon at Ladakh–The Highest Plateau State of India,” Indian Journal of Surgery 84 (2022): 471–476, 10.1007/s12262-021-03002-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Fischerström A., Nyholm L., Lewén A., and Enblad P., “Acute Neurosurgery for Traumatic Brain Injury by General Surgeons in Swedish County Hospitals: A Regional Study,” Acta Neurochirurgica 156 (2014): 177–185, 10.1007/s00701-013-1932-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Gilligan J., Reilly P., Pearce A., and Taylor D., “Management of Acute Traumatic Intracranial Haematoma in Rural and Remote Areas of Australia,” ANZ Journal of Surgery 87 (2017): 80–85, 10.1111/ans.13583. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Havill J. H. and Sleigh J., “Management and Outcomes of Patients With Brain Trauma in a Tertiary Referral Trauma Hospital Without Neurosurgeons on Site,” Anaesthesia and Intensive Care 26 (1998): 642–647, 10.1177/0310057X9802600605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Howard A., Krishnan V., Lane G., and Caird J., “Cranial Burr Holes in the Emergency Department: To Drill or Not to Drill?,” Emergency Medicine Journal 37 (2020): 151–153, 10.1136/emermed-2019-208943. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Hu J., Sokh V., Nguon S., et al., “Emergency Craniotomy and Burr‐Hole Trephination in a Low‐Resource Setting: Capacity Building at a Regional Hospital in Cambodia,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 11 (2022): 6471, 10.3390/ijerph19116471. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Kelly M. L., Stuart M., Zouki J., et al., “General Surgeon Performed Emergency Craniotomies in Regional Queensland Hospitals: A 20‐Year State‐Wide Study on Patient Outcomes,” ANZ Journal of Surgery 94 (2024): 585–590, 10.1111/ans.18911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Leitgeb J., Mauritz W., Brazinova A., et al., “Outcome of Patients With Severe Brain Trauma Who Were Treated Either by Neurosurgeons or by Trauma Surgeons,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 72 (2012): 1263–1270, 10.1097/TA.0b013e318248ed83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Luck T., Treacy P. J., Mathieson M., Sandilands J., Weidlich S., and Read D., “Emergency Neurosurgery in Darwin: Still the Generalist Surgeons' Responsibility,” ANZ Journal of Surgery 85 (2015): 610–614, 10.1111/ans.13138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Raman V., Maclachlan L., and Redmond M., “‘Burr Holes in the Bush’: Clinician Preparedness for Undertaking Emergency Intracranial Haematoma Evacuation Surgery in Rural and Regional Queensland,” Emergency Medicine Australasia 35 (2023): 406–411, 10.1111/1742-6723.14134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Rinker C. F., McMurry F. G., Groeneweg V. R., Bahnson F. F., Banks K. L., and Gannon D. M., “Emergency Craniotomy in a Rural Level III Trauma Center,” Journal of Trauma 44 (1998): 984–990, 10.1097/00005373-199806000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Simpson D., North B., Gilligan J., et al., “Neurological Injuries in South Australia: The Influence of Distance on Management and Outcome,” ANZ Journal of Surgery 54 (1984): 29–35, 10.1111/j.1445-2197.1984.tb06681.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Treacy P. J., Reilly P., and Brophy B., “Emergency Neurosurgery by General Surgeons at a Remote Major Hospital,” ANZ Journal of Surgery 75 (2005): 852–857, 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03549.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Umo I., Silihtau S., James K., Samof L., Ikasa R., and Commons R. J., “An Epidemiological and Clinical Study of Traumatic Brain Injury in Papua New Guinea Managed by General Surgeons in Two Provincial Hospitals,” Indian Journal of Surgery 85 (2023): 868–875, 10.1007/s12262-022-03612-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Visvanathan R., “Severe Head Injury Management in a General Surgery Department,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery 64 (1994): 527–529, 10.1111/j.1445-2197.1994.tb02278.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Winkler A. S., Tluway A., Slottje D., Schmutzhard E., and Hartl R., “The Pattern of Neurosurgical Disorders in Rural Northern Tanzania: A Prospective Hospital‐Based Study,” World Neurosurgery 73 (2010): 264–269, 10.1016/j.wneu.2010.03.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Yusof Vessey J., Shivapathasundram G., Francis N., and Sheridan M., “Is Neurotrauma Training in Rural New South Wales Still Required Following the Implementation of the New South Wales State Trauma Plan?,” ANZ Journal of Surgery 91 (2021): 1881–1885, 10.1111/ans.16978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade , “List of Developing Countries as Declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs,” 2022, https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/list‐developing‐countries.pdf.
- 33. Okon I. I., Akilimali A., Furqan M., et al., “Barriers to Accessing Neurosurgical Care in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries From Africa,” Annals of Medicine and Surgery 86 (2024): 1247–1248, 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001758. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Gupta R. and Rao S., “Major Trauma Transfer in Western Australia,” ANZ Journal of Surgery 73 (2003): 372–375, 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.t01-1-02652.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Australasian College for Emergency Medicine , “Curriculum,” 2024, https://acem.org.au/getmedia/9af41df8‐677f‐44ed‐b245‐440164155f56/FACEM‐Curriculum.
- 36. Australasian College for Emergency Medicine , “Curriculum: Diploma of Pre‐Hospital and Retrieval Medicine,” 2022, https://acem.org.au/getmedia/565a72ea‐a768‐479b‐9d18‐26b49cc17fa0/DipPHRM‐Curriculum‐Dec‐2020_FINAL.
- 37. Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine , “Fellowship: Rural Generalist Curriculum,” 2022, https://www.acrrm.org.au/docs/default‐source/all‐files/rural‐generalist‐curriculum.pdf/.
- 38. Royal Australian College of General Practitioners , “RACGP Rural Generalist Fellowship Training Handbook,” 2024, https://www.racgp.org.au/getattachment/7a8b8afc‐42e0‐4962‐859e‐076a209f23bb/RACGP‐Rural‐Generalist‐Fellowship‐Training‐Handbook.aspx.
- 39. Grossman M., See A. P., Mannix R., and Simon E. L., “Complete Neurological Recovery After Emergency Burr Hole Placement Utilizing EZ‐IO for Epidural Hematoma,” Journal of Emergency Medicine 63 (2022): 557–560, 10.1016/j.jemermed.2022.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Sen A., Kharroubi N., Pinder A., and Hempenstall J., “Drainage of an Extradural Haematoma by Intraosseous Needle in a Remote Hospital,” Trauma Case Reports 43 (2022): 100750, 10.1016/j.tcr.2022.100750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Tokushige J., Matsubara S., Tanaka Y., and Kato S., “Trephination for Acute Epidural Hematoma Using Stainless Wire on a Remote Island,” Journal of Emergency Medicine 43 (2012): 489–490, 10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.05.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Leonny S., Bowra J., Davis R. A., et al., “Review Article: Telehealth in Emergency Medicine in Australasia: Advantages and Barriers,” Emergency Medicine Australasia 36, no. 4 (2024): 498–504, 10.1111/1742-6723.14411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Picetti E., Catena F., Abu‐Zidan F., et al., “Early Management of Isolated Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Patients in a Hospital Without Neurosurgical Capabilities: A Consensus and Clinical Recommendations of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES),” World Journal of Emergency Surgery: WJES 18 (2023): 5, 10.1186/s13017-022-00468-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Carney N., Totten A. M., O'Reilley C., et al., Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury, 4th ed. (Brain Trauma Foundation, 2016), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/63e696a90a26c23e4c021cee/t/640b5e97fa1baa040e5c59af/1678466712870/Management_of_Severe_TBI_4th_Edition.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 45. Kirby H. A., Burcghell J., and Taylor J., “Decompressive Craniectomy in the Emergency Setting: A Historical Review, Summary of Published Evidence and Review of Implications for Pre‐Hospital Emergency Care,” Australasian Journal of Paramedicine 14 (2017): 1–6, 10.33151/ajp.14.1.504. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Bell R. S., McCafferty R., Shackelford S., et al., Emergency Life‐Saving Cranial Procedures by Non‐Neurosurgeons in Deployed Setting (Joint Trauma System, 2018), https://jts.health.mil/assets/docs/cpgs/Emergency_Life‐saving_Cranial_Procedures_by_Non‐Neurosurgeons_in_Deployed_Setting_23_Apr_2018_ID68.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 47. Parliament of Australia , “Chapter 2: Availability and Accessibility of Diagnostic Imaging,” 2018, https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Diagnosticimaging/~/media/Committees/clac_ctte/Diagnosticimaging/Report/c02.pdf.
- 48. Kulesza B., Mazurek M., Nogalski A., and Rola R., “Factors With the Strongest Prognostic Value Associated With In‐Hospital Mortality Rate Among Patients Operated for Acute Subdural and Epidural Hematoma,” European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 47 (2021): 1517–1525, 10.1007/s00068-020-01460-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. McCrea M. A., Giacino J. T., Barber J., et al., “Functional Outcomes Over the First Year After Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in the Prospective, Longitudinal TRACK‐TBI Study,” JAMA Neurology 78, no. 8 (2021): 982–992, 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.2043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Faber J. and Fonseca L. M., “How Sample Size Influences Research Outcomes,” Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 19 (2014): 27–29, 10.1590/2176-9451.19.4.027-029.ebo. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Rossini Z., Nicolosi F., Kolias A. G., Hutchinson P. J., De Sanctis P., and Servadei F., “The History of Decompressive Craniectomy in Traumatic Brain Injury,” Frontiers in Neurology 10 (2019): 458, 10.3389/fneur.2019.00458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Song F., Loke Y., and Hooper L., “Why Are Medical and Health‐Related Studies Not Being Published? A Systematic Review of Reasons Given by Investigators,” PLoS One 9 (2014): e110418, 10.1371/journal.pone.0110418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Bhaskar S. B., “Concealing Research Outcomes: Missing Data, Negative Results and Missed Publications,” Indian Journal of Anaesthesia 61 (2017): 453–455, 10.4103/ija.IJA_361_17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Appendix S1. PRSIMA extension for scoping reviews checklist.
Appendix S2. Search strategy.
Appendix S3. QATSDD criteria and scoring [10].
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
