Assessing the Success and Sustainability of Global Neurosurgery Collaborations: Systematic Review and Adaptation of the Framework for Assessment of InteRNational Surgical Success Criteria

Background: The high unmet neurosurgical burden in low- and middle-income countries has necessitated multiple global neurosurgical collaborations. We identified these collaborations and their peer-reviewed journal publications and evaluated them using a modified version of the Framework for Assessment of InteRNational Surgical Success (FAIRNeSS).

Methods: A systematic literature review yielded 265 articles describing neurosurgery-focused collaborations. A subset of 101 papers from 17 collaborations were evaluated with the modified FAIRNeSS criteria. Analysis of trends was performed for both individual articles and collaborations.

Results: Most of the articles were general reviews (64), and most focused on clinical research (115). The leading collaboration focus was workforce and infrastructure development (45%). Composite FAIRNeSS scores ranged from 7/34 to 30/34. Average FAIRNeSS scores for individual articles ranged from 0.25 to 26.75, while collaboration-wide FAIRNeSS score averages ranged from 5.25 to 20.04. There was significant variability within each subset of FAIRNeSS indicators (P value <0.001). Short-term goals had higher scores than medium- and long-term goals (P value <0.001). Collaboration composite scores correlated with the number of papers published (R² = 0.400, P = 0.007) but not with the number of years active (R² = 0.072, P = 0.3). Finally, the overall agreement between reviewers was 53.5%, and the overall correlation was 38.5%.

Conclusions: Global neurosurgery has no established metrics for evaluating collaborations; therefore, we adapted the FAIRNeSS criteria to do so. The criteria may not be well suited for measuring the success and sustainability of global neurosurgery collaborations, creating a need to develop a more applicable alternate set of metrics.