Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38073538›Full record

ReviewGlobal spine journal2024

Natural Experiments as a Study Method in Spinal Trauma Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Agnita Stadhouder, Luke Xander van Rossenberg, Charlotte Kik, S P J Muijs, F C Öner, R Marijn Houwert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global spine journal, 2024. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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. 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

6 authors.

Agnita StadhouderDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8882-3842
Luke Xander van RossenbergFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6649-5910
Charlotte KikDepartment of Neurosurgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
S P J MuijsDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
F C ÖnerDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
R Marijn HouwertDepartment of Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designSystematic review.

objectivesTo determine if the natural experiment design is a useful research methodology concept in spinal trauma care, and to determine if this methodology can be a viable alternative when randomized controlled trials are either infeasible or unethical.

methodsA Medline, Embase and Cochrane database search was performed between 2004 and 2023 for studies comparing different treatment modalities of spinal trauma. All observational studies with a natural experiment design comparing different treatment modalities of spinal trauma were included. Data extraction and quality assessment with the MINORS criteria was performed.

resultsFour studies with a natural experiment design regarding patients with traumatic spinal fractures were included. All studies were retrospective, one study collected follow-up data prospectively. Three studies compared different operative treatment modalities, whereas one study compared different antibiotic treatment strategies. Two studies compared preferred treatment modalities between expertise centers, one study between departments (neuro- and orthopedic surgery) and one amongst surgeons. For the included retrospective studies, MINORS scores (maximum score 18) were high ranging from 12-17 and with a mean (SD) of 14.6 (1.63).

conclusionsSince 2004 only four studies using a natural experiment design have been conducted in spinal trauma. In the included studies, comparability of patient groups was high emphasizing the potential of natural experiments in spinal trauma research. Natural experiments design should be considered more frequently in future research in spinal trauma as they may help to address difficult clinical problems when RCT's are infeasible or unethical.

Indexed as

methodologynatural experimentspinal fracturesystematic reviewtrauma

Identifiers

PMID38073538
PMCPMC11394511

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.