ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2015
Second opinion in spine surgery: a Brazilian perspective.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Second opinions for spinal surgery: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Second opinion in spine surgery: A scoping review.Surgical neurology international · 2021Article
- The market landscape of online second opinion services for spine surgery.Surgical neurology international · 2020Article
- Second opinion for degenerative spinal conditions: an option or a necessity? A prospective observational study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The authors present their experience in a programme for second opinion evaluation of spine surgery candidates within a cohort of patients from a healthcare provider in Brazil. Ninety-four patients were evaluated, and the second opinion was divided in complete agreement, partial disagreement, and complete disagreement. Patients with complete disagreement were referred for a third medical opinion. A complete agreement was found in 22 cases, partial disagreement in 28 cases, and complete disagreement in 44 cases. The majority of the discrepancies between first and second opinion were found in lumbar degenerative disorders, with a reduction of 50% in the amount of surgical procedures and a 50% reduction in the rate of instrumentation within this subset of patients. Within 1 year of the index evaluation, only two patients who followed the proposed treatment guidelines were reoperated, giving an estimate of the adequacy of this second opinion programme.
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.