ArticleGlobal spine journal2020
An Update on Wrong-Site Spine Surgery.
Article in Global spine journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Identifying a list of healthcare 'never events' to effect system change: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.BMJ open quality · 2023Pooled it
- 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
- From error to prevention of wrong-level spine surgery: a review.Patient safety in surgery · 2025Review
- Standalone ultrasound-based highly visualized volumetric spine imaging for surgical navigation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Novel 2D long film imaging utility to avoid wrong level spinal surgery.Radiology case reports · 2022Article
- A perspective on wrong level, wrong side, and wrong site spine surgery.Surgical neurology international · 2021Review
- Innovative Technology System to Prevent Wrong Site Surgery and Capture Near Misses: A Multi-Center Review of 487 Cases.Frontiers in surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designBroad narrative review of current literature and adverse event databases.
objectiveThe aim of this review is to report the current state of wrong-site spine surgery (WSSS), whether the Universal Protocol has affected the rate, and the current trends regarding WSSS.
methodsAn updated review of the current literature on WSSS, the Joint Commission sentinel event statistics database, and other state adverse event statistics database were performed.
resultsWSSS is an adverse event that remains a potentially devastating problem, and although the incidence is difficult to determine, the rate is low. However, given the potential consequences for the patient as well as the surgeon, WSSS remains an event that continues to be reported alarmingly as often as before the implementation of the Universal Protocol.
conclusionsA systems-based approach like the Universal Protocol should be effective in preventing wrong-patient, wrong-procedure, and wrong-sided surgeries if the established protocol is implemented and followed consistently within a given institution. However, wrong-level surgery can still occur after successful completion of the Universal Protocol. The surgeon is the sole provider who can establish the correct vertebral level during the operation, and therefore, it is imperative that the surgeon design and implement a patient-specific protocol to ensure that the appropriate level is identified during the operation.
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.