ArticleNeurosurgical review2024
Do we really apply evidence-based-recommendations to spine surgery? Results of an international survey.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An observational cohort study of factors associated with patients' reports of being offered lumbar spine surgery during orthopaedic spine consultations for chronic low back pain.British journal of pain · 2026Article
- Results of surgical treatment for grade IV-V spondylolisthesis usingJournal 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis international survey investigated Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) in spine surgery by measuring its acceptance among spine surgeons. It assessed their understanding of EBM and how they apply it in practice by analyzing responses to various clinical scenarios.. MATERIALS AND
methodsFollowing the CHERRIES guidelines, an e-survey was distributed to multiple social media forums for neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Telegram and circulated further through email via the authors' network. Three hundred participants from Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, and Oceania completed the survey.
resultsOur study revealed that 67.7% (n = 203) of respondents used EBM in their practice, and 97.3% (n = 292) believed training in research methodology and EBM was necessary for the practice of spine surgery. Despite this endorsement of using EBM in spine surgery, we observed varied responses to how EBM is applied in practice based on example scenarios. The responders who had additional training tended to obey EBM guidelines more than those who had no additional training. Most surgeons responded as always or sometimes prescribing methylprednisolone to patients with acute spinal cord injury. Other significant differences were identified between geographical regions, training, practice settings, and other factors.
conclusionsMost respondents used EBM in practice and believed training in research methodology and EBM is necessary for spine surgery; however, there were significant variations on how to use them per case. Thus, the appropriate application of EBM in clinical settings for spinal surgery must be further studied.
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.