Guidelines in Neurosurgery: a critical appraisal

Background: The process of grading and stratifying evidence in the extensive literature on neurosurgical guidelines has evolved significantly, ranging from high-quality standards to suggested options. However, the methodology for guideline development has become increasingly complex, leading to challenges in their application across various neurosurgical specialties and settings. This mini review aims to explore the practical implications of published suggestions for managing neurosurgical patients.

Methods: A critical and focused collection of published literature concerning guidelines in different neurosurgical topics, from Pubmed and other sources formed the basis of this non-systematic narrative review. Only guidelines produced by neurosurgeons in the era of evidence based medicine (after 1996) were included.

Results: Neurosurgical guidelines often rely on a limited number of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Class I evidence, particularly in surgical and emergency contexts where randomization of patient treatments may conflict with established clinical practices. Challenges also include the timely update of guidelines, which sometimes lags behind rapid shifts in evidence, and varying methodologies in guideline production that can result in divergent recommendations. Geographical disparities in disease burden and literature production further influence guideline applicability, suggesting a need for greater inclusion of authors from Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) to enhance realism and global relevance. Consensus conferences and expert reviews may serve as viable alternatives to address these challenges.

Conclusion: While Evidence-Based Medicine remains pivotal, critical appraisal and practical application of guidelines must consider these complexities to optimize patient care and outcomes.