ArticleWorld neurosurgery2024
Demographic and Socioeconomic Trends in Cervical Fusion Utilization from 2004 Through 2021 and the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Article in World neurosurgery, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Timing and predictors of in-hospital mortality after cervical fusion: A National Inpatient Sample study from 2016 to 2022.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Trends in spinal surgery pre- and post-pandemic in a large metropolitan area.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Teriparatide use is associated with increased odds of 2-year implant failure and revision in osteopenic patients undergoing cervical fusion.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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCervical fusion rates increased in the U.S. exponentially 1990-2014, but trends leading up to/during the COVID-19 pandemic have not been fully evaluated by patient socioeconomic status (SES). Here, we provide the most recent, comprehensive characterization of demographic and SES trends in cervical fusions, including during the pandemic.
methodsWe collected the following variables on adults undergoing cervical fusions, 1/1/2004-3/31/2021, in Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart: age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, provider's practicing state, gender, race, education, and net worth. We performed multivariate linear and logistic regression to evaluate associations of cervical fusion rates with SES variables.
resultsCervical fusion rates increased 2004-2016, then decreased 2016-2020. Proportions of Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients undergoing cervical fusions increased (OR = 1.001,1.001,1.004, P < 0.01), with a corresponding decrease in White patients (OR = 0.996, P < 0.001) over time. There were increases in cervical fusions in higher education groups (OR = 1.006, 1.002, P < 0.001) and lowest net worth group (OR = 1.012, P < 0.001). During the pandemic, proportions of White (OR = 1.015, P < 0.01) and wealthier patients (OR ≥ 1.015, P < 0.01) undergoing cervical fusions increased.
conclusionsWe present the first documented decrease in annual cervical surgery rates in the U.S. Our data reveal a bimodal distribution for cervical fusion patients, with racial-minority, lower-net-worth, and highly-educated patients receiving increasing proportions of surgical interventions. White and wealthier patients were more likely to undergo cervical fusions during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been reported in other areas of medicine but not yet in spine surgery. There is still considerable work needed to improve equitable access to spine care for the entire U.S. POPULATION:
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.