ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2022
Modifiable Patient Factors Demonstrate No Increased Risk for 30-Day Complication Rate for Elective 1-2 Level Posterior Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Comparison Between a National Database and Local Registry.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maintenance Inhaled Corticosteroid Use is Associated With Increased Revision Risk in Asthmatic Patients Undergoing Lumbar Fusion.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Swiss national spinal implant registry SIRIS Spine: methods and first results.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- National trends in postoperative complications for lumbar spinal fusion from 2009 to 2022.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile national databases provide large datasets that can be used to understand trends over time, their correlation with prospectively collected data from local registries has not been established. The purpose of the study was to compare differences in patient demographics and adverse events for patients undergoing elective posterior spinal fusion (PSF) between a national database and institutional registry.
methodsA retrospective chart review was performed. A total of 14,618 patients (13,678 patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program [NSQIP] database and 940 patients from the institutional registry) who underwent elective 1- to 2-level PSF were included in the study. Preoperative patient demographics and comorbidities of each cohort were compared. In addition, postoperative 30-day complications and readmission were collected. A multivariate analysis was performed to examine for differences in risk factors for 30-day adverse events between the 2 cohorts.
resultsA total of 13,678 patients from the NSQIP database and 940 patients from the institutional cohort were included for analysis. Mean age was similar between patient cohorts (60.8 ± 13.1
conclusionsAge and female sex were found to be independent risk factors for 30-day adverse events between both cohorts, while only NSQIP found modifiable comorbidities to be significant predictors. Although large databases allow for trends in quality over time, subtleties in practice variation and data collection methods at the individual institution level need to be considered when generalizing findings, especially as it pertains to modifiable factors. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Quality metrics and risk factors for patient outcomes are often derived from national databases. This study highlights the differences between study results when outcomes are derived from an institutional registry compared to a national database. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.