{Reference Type}: Letter
{Title}: Letter to editor: 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.
{Author}: Mughal ZUN;Malik A;
{Journal}: Neurosurg Rev
{Volume}: 47
{Issue}: 1
{Year}: 2024 Apr 11
{Factor}: 2.8
{DOI}: 10.1007/s10143-024-02394-0
{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.