Outcome measures in neurosurgery: is a unified approach better? A literature review

Background: Accurate assessment and evaluation of health interventions are crucial to evidence-based care. The use of outcome measures in neurosurgery grew with the introduction of the Glasgow Coma Scale. Since then, various outcome measures have appeared, some of which are disease-specific and others more generally. This article aims to address the most widely used outcome measures in three major neurosurgery subspecialties, "vascular, traumatic, and oncologic," focusing on the potential, advantages, and drawbacks of a unified approach to these outcome measures.

Methods: A literature review search was conducted by using PubMed MEDLINE and Google scholar Databases. Data for the three most common outcome measures, The Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), and The Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), were extracted and analyzed.

Results: The original objective of establishing a standardized, common language for the accurate categorization, quantification, and evaluation of patients' outcomes has been eroded. The KPS, in particular, may provide a common ground for initiating a unified approach to outcome measures. With clinical testing and modification, it may offer a simple, internationally standardized approach to outcome measures in neurosurgery and elsewhere. Based on our analysis, Karnofsky's Performance Scale may provide a basis of reaching a unified global outcome measure.

Conclusion: Outcome measures in neurosurgery, including mRS, GOS, and KPS, are widely utilized assessment tools for patients' outcomes in various neurosurgical specialties. A unified global measure may offer solutions with ease of use and application; however, there are limitations.