ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2021
Does country of origin influence research outcomes in operative interventions for lumbar spinal stenosis?
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, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionBias undermines evidence-based decision making. To counter this, surgeons must be aware of biases that may influence studies' reported outcomes. Lumbar spinal stenosis often requires operative intervention, with multiple available surgical strategies. Our aim was to assess the role that country of origin plays in published surgical outcomes for lumbar spinal stenosis.
methodsWe performed a search strategy of MEDLINE and EMBASE for all English language primary research papers evaluating operative interventions for lumbar spinal stenosis during the years 2010-2019 inclusive. Small case series and meta-analyses were excluded. Papers were assessed for outcome positivity and country of origin. Data analysis was conducted using GraphPad Prism statistical software.
resultsA total of 487 papers met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 419 (86%) reported positive outcomes. Asian studies were the most likely to report positive outcomes, at 93% (220 of 236), followed by US studies at 89% (98 of 110). European studies had the lowest positive publication rate at 69% (84 of 121). Region of origin was an independent predictor of positive study outcome on multivariable analysis when controlling for different study designs and healthcare systems.
conclusionThere is an association between country of origin and positive reported outcome in studies evaluating interventions for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clinicians should consider this when making management decisions based on published evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33386475What 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.