ReviewJB & JS open access
Longitudinal Assessment of Modern Spine Surgery Training: 10-Year Follow-up of a Nationwide Survey of Residency and Spine Fellowship Program Directors.
Review in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Predictors for Leadership in Surgical Subspecialty National Organizations.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spine surgeons complete training through residency in orthopaedic surgery (ORTH) or neurosurgery (NSGY). A survey was conducted in 2013 to evaluate spine surgery training. Over the past decade, advances in surgical techniques and the changing dynamics in fellowship training may have affected training and program director (PD) perceptions may have shifted. Methods: This study is a cross-sectional survey distributed to all PDs of ORTH and NSGY residencies and spine fellowships in the United States. Participants were queried regarding characteristics of their program, ideal characteristics of residency training, and opinions regarding the current training environment. χ Results: In total, 241 PDs completed the survey. From 2013 to 2023, NSGY increased the proportion of residents with >300 spine cases (86%-100%) while ORTH remained with >90% of residents with < 225 cases (p < 0.05). A greater number of NSGY PDs encouraged spine fellowship even for community spine surgery practice (0% in 2013 vs. 14% in 2023, p < 0.05), which continued to be significantly different from ORTH PDs (∼88% agreed, p > 0.05). 100% of NSGY PDs remained confident in their residents performing spine surgery, whereas ORTH confidence significantly decreased from 43% in 2013 to 25% in 2023 (p < 0.05). For spinal deformity, orthopaedic PDs (92%), NSGY PDs (96%), and fellowship directors (95%), all agreed that a spine fellowship should be pursued (p = 0.99). In both 2013 and 2023, approximately 44% were satisfied with the spine training model in the United States. In 2013, 24% of all PDs believed we should have a dedicated spine residency, which increased to 39% in 2023 (fellowship: 57%, ORTH: 38%, NSGY: 21%) (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Spine surgery training continues to evolve, yet ORTH and neurological surgery training remains significantly different in case volumes and educational strengths. In both 2013 and 2023, less than 50% of PDs were satisfied with the current spine surgery training model, and a growing minority believe that spine surgery should have its own residency training pathway. Level of Evidence: IV.
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.