ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2016
Spine Tango registry data collection in a conservative spinal service: a feasibility study.
Article 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, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a Preliminary Conceptual Framework for Guidelines on Inclusion of Patient Reported-Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Clinical Quality Registries.Patient related outcome measures · 2019Article
- 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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe study reports the feasibility of implementing routine registry data collection and sustaining a high rate of data capture within a secondary care spinal osteopathy service, using the Spine Tango Conservative registry data collection tool (STC) with multiple patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), COMI Low Back Conservative, COMI Neck Conservative and EQ-5D-3L.
methodsData collection rates were studied during the implementation of a registry data collection project from October 2011 to June 2015. The primary outcome was completion rate of PROMs and the STC, measured as a percentage of total expected data collection. Descriptive statistics were used to illustrate completion rates by year, age group, sex, region of spinal complaint, baseline ODI or NDI score and number of PROMs required to complete the data set.
resultsData were collected on 349 patients. Overall data collection rates increased from 54.8 % in January-June 2012 to 90.4 % in January-June 2015. The percentage of fully completed data sets was lower in the patient group required to complete 4-5 PROMs at each data collection point (15.4 %) than it was in the patient group required to complete 2-3 PROMs (37.4 %). Other comparisons showed no clear patterns.
conclusionsOur analysis shows that a high rate of data capture can be sustained in a clinical setting using the STC and multiple PROMs. However, increasing the burden of data collection on patients and practitioners was associated with increased data loss. We describe measures taken to reduce data loss in the future and to increase the efficiency of the data collection project.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27439415What 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.