ReviewChild's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery2021
Evaluating the utility and quality of large administrative databases in pediatric spinal neurosurgery research.
Review in Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating pituitary adenomas using national research databases: systematic review of the quality of reporting based on the STROBE scale.Neurosurgical review · 2022Pooled it
- Reporting quality and risk of bias in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis brace studies: a systematic evaluation on behalf of the SRS comprehensive care committee.Spine deformity · 2026Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the quality of articles utilizing large administrative databases to answer questions related to pediatric spinal neurosurgery by quantifying their adherence to standard reporting guidelines.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted with search terms including "pediatric" and "neurosurgery," associated neurosurgical diagnoses, and the names of known databases. Study abstracts were reviewed to identify clinical studies involving pediatric populations, spine-related pathology or procedures, and large administrative databases. Included studies were graded using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) criteria.
resultsA total of 28 papers of the initial 1496 identified met inclusion criteria. These papers involved 10 databases and had a mean study period of 11.46 ± 12.27 years. The subjects of these research papers were undergoing treatment of scoliosis (n = 5), spinal cord injury (n = 5), spinal cord tumors (n = 9), and spine surgery in general (n = 9). The mean STROBE score was 19.41 ± 2.02 (out of 22).
conclusionLarge administrative databases are commonly used within pediatric spine-related neurosurgical research to cover a broad spectrum of research questions and study topics. The heterogeneity of research to this point encourages the continued use of large databases to better understand treatment and diagnostic trends, perioperative and long-term outcomes, and rare pathologies within pediatric spinal neurosurgery.
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.