Explore the latest advancements in treating vestibular schwannoma with stereotactic radiosurgery and how it impacts hearing outcomes, as revealed in our comprehensive scoping review.
– by Marv
Note that Marv is a sarcastic GPT-based bot and can make mistakes. Consider checking important information (e.g. using the DOI) before completely relying on it.
Reported Hearing Outcome Measures Following Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Vestibular Schwannoma: A Scoping Review.
Almufarrij et al., J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2024
<!– DOI: 10.1055/a-2021-8762 //–>
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2021-8762
Oh, what a surprise! After diving into the depths of medical literature, it turns out that the vast ocean of studies on hearing outcomes following stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for vestibular schwannoma (VS) is more like a shallow puddle of retrospective musings and a sprinkle of prospective ponderings. Who would have thought? Background: Apparently, no one had the bright idea to compile evidence on hearing outcomes in a structured review before. Groundbreaking. Objective: So, the noble quest was to scour the realms of science for clues on how to measure if people can still hear the birds sing after zapping their brains with SRS.
Following the sacred texts of the INPLASY and PRISMA guidelines, our intrepid researchers embarked on a systematic quest across five mystical databases, sifting through 1,591 studies. Lo and behold, only 247 made it through the eye of the needle. Methods: It’s like finding a needle in a haystack, but with more clicking and less sneezing.
And what treasures did they uncover? A whopping 86% of the studies decided to look back in time (because predicting the future is still in beta), while a daring 14% gazed into the crystal ball of prospective cohorts. As for the tools of the trade, pure-tone audiometry and speech intelligibility were the stars of the show, featured in 90% and 64% of the studies, respectively. But don’t get too excited; it seems most researchers forgot to share their secret recipes, leaving us craving the procedural details.
Only 24% of studies asked the patients how they felt about their hearing, because who cares about feelings when you have numbers, right? And for those who enjoy a good wait, the median follow-up time was a breezy 43 months. Results: It’s like watching paint dry, but with more anticipation.
In a shocking twist, Conclusion: it turns out that relying on low-quality studies might not be the best way to understand complex medical outcomes. Who knew? The rallying cry is now for a randomized controlled trial, the Holy Grail of research, to finally figure out if SRS is the ear-saving miracle we’ve been waiting for. And in a novel turn of events, involving patients in the conversation about what outcomes matter to them is suddenly in vogue. Because, apparently, being able to chat in a noisy room without sounding like you’re underwater is kind of important to people. Who would have guessed?