Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37297705›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Benefits of Best Practice Guidelines in Spine Fusion: Comparable Correction in AIS with Higher Density and Fewer Complications.

Pedro Fernandes, Isabel Flores, Joaquim Soares do Brito

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pedro FernandesCentro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte, Orthopaedics Department, Avenida Professor Egas Moniz, 1649-035 Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-8377-6247
Isabel FloresISCTE Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, 1649-026, Lisboa, Portugal.
Joaquim Soares do BritoCentro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte, Orthopaedics Department, Avenida Professor Egas Moniz, 1649-035 Lisboa, Portugal.
University of Lisbon · PTIscte – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is significant variability in surgeons' instrumentation patterns for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. Implant density and costs are difficult to correlate with deformity correction, safety, and quality of life measures. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwo groups of postoperative adolescents were compared based on exposure to a best practice guidelines program (BPGP) introduced to decrease complications. Hybrid and stainless steel constructs were dropped, and posterior-based osteotomies, screws, and implant density were increased to 66.8 ± 12.03 vs. 57.5 ± 16.7% (

results34 patients were operated on before BPGP and 48 after. The samples were comparable, with the exceptions of a higher density and longer operative times after BPGP. Initial and final corrections before BPGP were 67.9° ± 22.9 and 64.6° ± 23.7; after BPGP, the corrections were 70.6° ± 17.4 and 66.5° ± 14.9 (sd). A regression analysis did not show a relation between the number of implants and postoperative correction (beta = -0.116,

findingsAlthough it appears counterintuitive that higher density, osteotomies, and operative time may lead to fewer complications, the study shows the value of best practice guidelines in spinal fusions. It also shows that a 66% implant density leads to better safety and efficacy, avoiding higher costs.

Indexed as

adolescent idiopathic scoliosiscomplicationsimplant densityoutcomes

Identifiers

PMID37297705
PMCPMC10252400
OpenAlexW4378528069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.