Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37537577›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023

Leveraging web-based prediction calculators to set patient expectations for elective spine surgery: a qualitative study to inform implementation.

Trevor A Lentz, Byron F Stephens, Amir M Abtahi, Jacob Schwarz, Andrew J Schoenfeld, Bethany A Rhoten, Shannon Block, Alex O'Brien, Kristin R Archer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Trevor A LentzDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University, 300 W. Morgan Street, Durham, NC, 27701, USA. trevor.lentz@duke.edu.
Byron F StephensDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Amir M AbtahiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Jacob SchwarzDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Andrew J SchoenfeldDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Bethany A RhotenSchool of Nursing, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Shannon BlockDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Alex O'BrienDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Kristin R ArcherDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Neurological Surgery · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USDuke University · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrediction calculators can help set outcomes expectations following orthopaedic surgery, however effective implementation strategies for these tools are unknown. This study evaluated provider and patient perspectives on clinical implementation of web-based prediction calculators developed using national prospective spine surgery registry data from the Quality Outcomes Database.

methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews in two health systems, Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) and Duke University Health System (DUHS) of orthopedic and neurosurgery health care providers (VUMC: n = 19; DUHS: n = 6), health care administrators (VUMC: n = 9; DUHS: n = 9), and patients undergoing elective spine surgery (VUMC: n = 16). Qualitative template analysis was used to analyze interview data, with a focus on end-user perspectives regarding clinical implementation of web-based prediction tools.

resultsHealth care providers, administrators and patients overwhelmingly supported the use of the calculators to help set realistic expectations for surgical outcomes. Some clinicians had questions about the validity and applicability of the calculators in their patient population. A consensus was that the calculators needed seamless integration into clinical workflows, but there was little agreement on best methods for selecting which patients to complete the calculators, timing, and mode of completion. Many interviewees expressed concerns that calculator results could influence payers, or expose risk of liability. Few patients expressed concerns over additional survey burden if they understood that the information would directly inform their care.

conclusionsInterviewees had a largely positive opinion of the calculators, believing they could aid in discussions about expectations for pain and functional recovery after spine surgery. No single implementation strategy is likely to be successful, and strategies vary, even within the same healthcare system. Patients should be well-informed of how responses will be used to deliver better care, and concerns over how the calculators could impact payment and liability should be addressed prior to use. Future research is necessary to determine whether use of calculators improves management and outcomes for people seeking a surgical consult for spine pain.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeMotivationHumansInternetPainProspective StudiesCounselingDecision-makingExpectationMusculoskeletalPrognosisSurgery

Identifiers

PMID37537577
PMCPMC10399016
OpenAlexW4385552640

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.