Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Numerous studies have examined epilepsy surgery outcomes, yet the variability in the level of detail reported hampers our ability to apply these findings broadly across patient groups. Established reporting standards in other clinical research fields enhance the quality and generalizability of results, ensuring that the insights gained from studying these surgeries can benefit future patients effectively. This study aims to assess current reporting standards for epilepsy surgery research and identify potential gaps and areas for enhancement.
METHODS: The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) repository was accessed from inception to April 27, 2023, yielding 561 available reporting standards. Reporting standards were manually reviewed in duplicate independently for applicability to epilepsy and/or neurosurgery research. The reporting standards had to cover the following aspects in human studies: (1) reporting standards for epilepsy/epilepsy surgery and (2) reporting standards for neurosurgery. Disagreements were resolved by a third author. The top five neurosurgery, neurology, and medicine journals were also identified through Google Scholar\'s citation index and examined to determine the relevant reporting standards they recommended and whether those were registered with EQUATOR.
RESULTS: Of the 561 EQUATOR reporting standards, 181 were pertinent to epilepsy surgery. One was related to epilepsy, six were specific to surgical research, and nine were related to neurological/neurosurgical research. The remaining 165 reporting standards were applicable to research across various disciplines and included but were not limited to CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trails), STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). None of these required reporting factors associated with epilepsy surgery outcomes, such as duration of epilepsy or magnetic resonance imaging findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting standards specific to epilepsy surgery are lacking, reflecting a gap in standards that may affect the quality of publications. Improving this gap with a set of specific reporting standards would ensure that epilepsy surgery studies are more transparent and rigorous in their design.
METHODS: The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) repository was accessed from inception to April 27, 2023, yielding 561 available reporting standards. Reporting standards were manually reviewed in duplicate independently for applicability to epilepsy and/or neurosurgery research. The reporting standards had to cover the following aspects in human studies: (1) reporting standards for epilepsy/epilepsy surgery and (2) reporting standards for neurosurgery. Disagreements were resolved by a third author. The top five neurosurgery, neurology, and medicine journals were also identified through Google Scholar\'s citation index and examined to determine the relevant reporting standards they recommended and whether those were registered with EQUATOR.
RESULTS: Of the 561 EQUATOR reporting standards, 181 were pertinent to epilepsy surgery. One was related to epilepsy, six were specific to surgical research, and nine were related to neurological/neurosurgical research. The remaining 165 reporting standards were applicable to research across various disciplines and included but were not limited to CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trails), STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). None of these required reporting factors associated with epilepsy surgery outcomes, such as duration of epilepsy or magnetic resonance imaging findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting standards specific to epilepsy surgery are lacking, reflecting a gap in standards that may affect the quality of publications. Improving this gap with a set of specific reporting standards would ensure that epilepsy surgery studies are more transparent and rigorous in their design.
摘要：
目的：许多研究已经检查了癫痫手术的结果，然而,报告的细节水平的差异阻碍了我们在患者组中广泛应用这些发现的能力.在其他临床研究领域建立的报告标准提高了结果的质量和通用性，确保从研究这些手术中获得的见解可以有效地使未来的患者受益。本研究旨在评估目前癫痫手术研究的报告标准，并确定潜在的差距和需要加强的领域。
方法：增强健康研究质量和透明度（EQUATOR）存储库从成立到2023年4月27日被访问，产生了561个可用的报告标准。对于癫痫和/或神经外科研究的适用性，报告标准进行了两次独立的手动审查。报告标准必须涵盖人体研究的以下方面：（1）癫痫/癫痫手术的报告标准和（2）神经外科手术的报告标准。第三作者解决了分歧。前五名神经外科，神经学,和医学期刊也通过GoogleScholar的引文索引进行识别，并进行检查以确定他们推荐的相关报告标准以及这些标准是否在EQUATOR注册。
结果：在561个EQUATOR报告标准中，181与癫痫手术有关。一个与癫痫有关，六个是专门针对外科研究的，9例与神经/神经外科研究有关。其余165个报告标准适用于不同学科的研究，包括但不限于CONSORT（合并报告标准）。STROBE（加强流行病学观察研究的报告），和PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)。这些与癫痫手术结果相关的必需报告因素均无，如癫痫持续时间或磁共振成像结果。
结论：缺乏癫痫手术特有的报告标准，反映了可能影响出版物质量的标准差距。通过一套具体的报告标准来改善这一差距，将确保癫痫手术研究的设计更加透明和严格。
方法：增强健康研究质量和透明度（EQUATOR）存储库从成立到2023年4月27日被访问，产生了561个可用的报告标准。对于癫痫和/或神经外科研究的适用性，报告标准进行了两次独立的手动审查。报告标准必须涵盖人体研究的以下方面：（1）癫痫/癫痫手术的报告标准和（2）神经外科手术的报告标准。第三作者解决了分歧。前五名神经外科，神经学,和医学期刊也通过GoogleScholar的引文索引进行识别，并进行检查以确定他们推荐的相关报告标准以及这些标准是否在EQUATOR注册。
结果：在561个EQUATOR报告标准中，181与癫痫手术有关。一个与癫痫有关，六个是专门针对外科研究的，9例与神经/神经外科研究有关。其余165个报告标准适用于不同学科的研究，包括但不限于CONSORT（合并报告标准）。STROBE（加强流行病学观察研究的报告），和PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)。这些与癫痫手术结果相关的必需报告因素均无，如癫痫持续时间或磁共振成像结果。
结论：缺乏癫痫手术特有的报告标准，反映了可能影响出版物质量的标准差距。通过一套具体的报告标准来改善这一差距，将确保癫痫手术研究的设计更加透明和严格。
