ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2006
The rationale for a spine registry.
Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Structured Data Validation on Case Completeness and Key Quality Indicators in the SWISS Implant Registry (SIRIS Spine): A SINGLE-CENTER Audit.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Diagnostic reliability of the FinSpine nationwide spine surgery registry: Comparison between clinical registry diagnoses and blinded imaging assessments.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Measuring Value in Elective Spine Surgery.Spine surgery and related research · 2022Review
- The use of electronic PROMs provides same outcomes as paper version in a spine surgery registry. Results from a prospective cohort study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2021Article
- Shaping conservative spinal services with the Spine Tango Registry.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018Article
- Spine Tango registry data collection in a conservative spinal service: a feasibility study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2016Article
- Influence of preoperative nucleus pulposus status and radiculopathy on outcomes in mono-segmental lumbar total disc replacement: results from a nationwide registry.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2011Article
- "Unnecessary" spinal surgery: A prospective 1-year study of one surgeon's experience.Surgical neurology international · 2011Article
- Vertebroplasty: about sense and nonsense of uncontrolled "controlled randomized prospective trials".European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2009Article
- The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2008Article
- Differences across health care systems in outcome and cost-utility of surgical and conservative treatment of chronic low back pain: a study protocol.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the discussion about the rationale for spine registries, two basic questions have to be answered. The first one deals with the value of orthopaedic registries per se, considering them as observational studies and comparing the evidence they generate with that of randomised controlled trials. The second question asks if the need for registries in spine surgery is similar to that in the arthroplasty sector. The widely held view that randomised controlled trials are the 'gold standard' for evaluation and that observational methods have little or no value ignores the limitations of randomised trials. They may prove unnecessary, inappropriate, impossible, or inadequate. In addition, the external validity and hence the ability to make generalisations about the results of randomised trials is often low. Therefore, the false conflict between those who advocate randomised trials in all situations and those who believe observational data provide sufficient evidence needs to be replaced with mutual recognition of their complementary roles. The fact that many surgical techniques or technologies were introduced into the field of spine surgery without randomised trials or prospective cohort comparisons makes obvious an even increased need for spine registries compared to joint arthroplasty. An essential methodological prerequisite for a registry is a common terminology for reporting results and a sophisticated technology that networks all participants so that one central data pool is created and accessed. Recognising this need, the Spine Society of Europe has researched and developed Spine Tango, the first European spine registry, which can be accessed under www.eurospine.org.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.