ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2018
Spine surgery registries: hope for evidence-based spinal care?
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2018. 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, 9 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
- Translating Data Analytics Into Improved Spine Surgery Outcomes: A Roadmap for Biomedical Informatics Research in 2021.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- 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
- Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) L5-S1 with overpowering of posterior lumbosacral instrumentation and fusion mass: a reliable solution in revision spine surgery.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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to describe the perceptions of decision-makers in major orthopedic centers regarding the value, implementation and use of spine surgery registries. A 33-item survey was sent to CEOs and heads of spine surgery of the International Society of Orthopedic Centers (ISOC). ISOC includes 21 hospitals worldwide with a special focus on high-quality musculoskeletal care. Twelve out of 20 member centers (60%) replied to the survey. Seven have working registries; 5 in Europe and 2 in North America. The estimations for the cost/year were distributed more evenly: $10,000 [2], $20,000 [1], $50,000 [1]. Society cannot afford unnecessary surgery nor renounce to cure patients with effective treatments. Spine surgery registries provide high levels of evidence. The cost of implementing a registry is limited in comparison to RCTs. Spine registries can pragmatically fill our knowledge gap by turning every operated patient into a study participant.
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.