ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2018
Clinical Translation of the LevelCheck Decision Support Algorithm for Target Localization in Spine Surgery.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2018. 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.
- Accuracy in spinal level determination, including transitional vertebrae: an ASReview supported systematic review.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 · 2026Review
- Preventing Wrong-Level Spine Surgery.Acta neurochirurgica. Supplement · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent work has yielded a method for automatic labeling of vertebrae in intraoperative radiographs as an assistant to manual level counting. The method, called LevelCheck, previously demonstrated promise in phantom studies and retrospective studies. This study aims to: (#1) Analyze the effect of LevelCheck on accuracy and confidence of localization in two modes: (a) Independent Check (labels displayed after the surgeon's decision) and (b) Active Assistant (labels presented before the surgeon's decision). (#2) Assess the feasibility and utility of LevelCheck in the operating room. Two studies were conducted: a laboratory study investigating these two workflow implementations in a simulated operating environment with 5 surgeons, reviewing 62 cases selected from a dataset of radiographs exhibiting a challenge to vertebral localization; and a clinical study involving 20 patients undergoing spine surgery. In Study #1, the median localization error without assistance was 30.4% (IQR = 5.2%) due to the challenging nature of the cases. LevelCheck reduced the median error to 2.4% for both the Independent Check and Active Assistant modes (p < 0.01). Surgeons found LevelCheck to increase confidence in 91% of cases. Study #2 demonstrated accuracy in all cases. The algorithm runtime varied from 17 to 72 s in its current implementation. The algorithm was shown to be feasible, accurate, and to improve confidence during surgery.
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.