Abstract：
The \"Letter to the Editor\" titled \"Scalp incision technique for decompressive hemicraniectomy: comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of the reverse question mark versus alternative retroauricular and Kempe incision techniques of published cases\" provides a detailed analysis of different scalp incision techniques in decompressive hemicraniectomy procedures. While commendable for its systematic approach and valuable insights, the letter has several limitations, including a lack of transparency in the search strategy, failure to address potential sources of bias, and a narrow focus on technical aspects without considering broader outcome domains and practical considerations. Despite these limitations, the letter underscores the importance of evidence-based decision-making in neurosurgical practice and calls for further research to address these gaps.
摘要：
“致编辑的信”标题为“用于大骨瓣减压术的头皮切口技术：反向问号与已发表病例的替代耳后和Kempe切口技术的比较系统评价和荟萃分析”，详细分析了大骨瓣减压术中的不同头皮切口技术。虽然其系统的方法和宝贵的见解值得称赞，这封信有几个限制，包括搜索策略缺乏透明度，未能解决潜在的偏见来源，以及狭隘地关注技术方面，而不考虑更广泛的结果领域和实际考虑。尽管有这些限制,这封信强调了循证决策在神经外科实践中的重要性,并呼吁进一步研究以弥补这些差距.
