Transparency

Transparency refers to the quality or state of being open, clear, and easily understandable, allowing for information or processes to be easily accessible and visible to others. In various contexts, transparency is valued for promoting trust, accountability, and informed decision-making.

Research and Academia: In research and academia, transparency is vital for maintaining the integrity of scientific inquiry. This includes transparent reporting of methods, results, and potential conflicts of interest in research studies.

Technology and Data Privacy: In the digital age, transparency is crucial in technology and data privacy. Clear information about how user data is collected, stored, and used is essential to build and maintain trust with users.

Healthcare: Transparency in healthcare involves providing clear information about treatment options, costs, and outcomes. In clinical research, transparency includes the registration of clinical trials and transparent reporting of study results.

Media and Journalism: Transparent reporting in media and journalism involves providing accurate information, citing sources, and being clear about potential biases. Ethical journalism values transparency to maintain credibility.

Overall, transparency is a fundamental principle in various sectors of society, promoting accountability, trust, and informed decision-making. It helps build and maintain positive relationships between individuals, organizations, and institutions.

The Open Science movement aims at ensuring accessibility, reproducibility, and transparency of research.

Price Transparency

• Bridging theory and practice: a scoping review protocol on gamification's impact in clinical reasoning education
• Accessing Rehabilitation after Upper Limb Reconstructive Surgery in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A Qualitative Study
• Reporting guidelines for protocols of randomised controlled trials of implantable neurostimulation devices: the SPIRIT-iNeurostim extension
• Reporting guidelines for randomised controlled trial reports of implantable neurostimulation devices: the CONSORT-iNeurostim extension
• Machine Learning Algorithms for Neurosurgical Preoperative Planning: A Comprehensive Scoping Review
• Accuracy of Financial Disclosures by Scientific Presenters/Authors at the ASNR 2024 annual meeting
• The Naked Neurosurgeon and the Anatomy of a Complication
• Lies, damned lies, and statistical populations

Transparency in neurosurgery is a critical aspect that encompasses open communication, clear information sharing, and ethical practices. This is important not only for building trust between healthcare providers and patients but also for ensuring the quality and safety of neurosurgical care. Here are some key aspects of transparency in neurosurgery:

Patient Communication: Neurosurgeons should communicate clearly and openly with their patients. This includes discussing the diagnosis, treatment options, potential risks, and expected outcomes. Transparent communication helps patients make informed decisions about their care.

Informed Consent: Informed consent is a crucial component of transparency in neurosurgery. Surgeons must provide patients with detailed information about the proposed surgery, potential risks, and alternative treatments, allowing patients to make educated decisions about their treatment.

Clinical Documentation: Accurate and comprehensive documentation of patient records, including medical history, diagnostic tests, and treatment plans, is essential for transparency. Clear records facilitate collaboration among healthcare providers and ensure continuity of care.

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Neurosurgeons should disclose any potential conflicts of interest, financial relationships, or industry affiliations that may influence their decision-making or recommendations. This transparency helps maintain the integrity of patient care.

Clinical Research Transparency: If involved in clinical research, neurosurgeons should adhere to transparent research practices. This includes registering clinical trials, reporting results, and publishing findings in reputable scientific journals. Transparent research contributes to the advancement of neurosurgical knowledge.

Quality and Outcome Reporting: Neurosurgical practices should be transparent about their quality and outcome metrics. This may involve sharing data on surgical success rates, complication rates, and patient satisfaction. Such information can help patients make informed choices about their healthcare providers.

Continuing Education and Training: Neurosurgeons should engage in continuous learning and professional development. Transparent sharing of new techniques, technologies, and research findings within the neurosurgical community contributes to overall improvement in patient care.

Ethical Practice: Transparency in neurosurgery also involves adherence to ethical guidelines and principles. This includes maintaining patient confidentiality, respecting autonomy, and upholding the highest standards of professionalism.

By embracing transparency, neurosurgeons can foster a culture of trust, accountability, and patient-centered care. This not only benefits individual patient-doctor relationships but also contributes to the overall credibility and advancement of the field of neurosurgery.

A study of Janssen et al. determined the prevalence and financial magnitude of potential conflict of interest among editorial board members of five leading spine journals. The editorial boards of: The Spine Journal; Spine; European Spine Journal; Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine; and Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques were extracted on January 2013 from the journals' websites. Disclosure statements were retrieved from the 2013 disclosure index of the North American Spine Society; the program of the 20th International Meeting on Advanced Spine Techniques; the program of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Scoliosis Research Society; the program of the AOSpine global spine congress; the presentations of the 2013 Annual Eurospine meeting; and the disclosure index of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Names of the editorial board members were compared with the individuals who completed a disclosure for one of these indexes. Disclosures were extracted when full names matched. Two hundred and ten (29%) of the 716 identified editorial board members reported a potential conflict of interest and 154 (22%) reported nothing to disclose. The remaining 352 (49%) editorial board members had no disclosure statement listed for one of the indexes. Eighty-nine (42%) of the 210 editorial board members with a potential conflict of interest reported a financial relationship of more than $10,000 during the prior year. This finding confirms that potential conflicts of interest exist in editorial boards which might influence the peer review process and can result in bias. Academia and medical journals in particular should be aware of this and strive to improve transparency of the review process. Janssen et al. emphasize recommendations that contribute to achieving this goal ¹⁾.