SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Comparative assessment of surgical outcomes and cost-efficiency between orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons in degenerative lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review with pairwise and proportional meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study combines pairwise and proportional meta-analyses to evaluate differences in outcomes and cost-efficiency between neurosurgeons (NS) and orthopedic surgeons (OS) for lumbar degenerative disease. Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Ovid, Web of Science, and Springer Link were searched for studies comparing NS and OS outcomes. Results for pairwise meta-analysis were generated with the "metabin" function using standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables and odds ratios (OR) for binary variables, while the "metaprop" function was used to calculate pooled proportions in proportional meta-analysis. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024545992). Of the 457 search results, 7 studies were included. Compared to OS patients, NS patients exhibited significantly higher overall complication rates [OR: 1.09 (95% CI: 1.03-1.15); NS: 9.49%, OS: 8.92%], hospital costs [SMD: 0.30 (95% CI: 0.28-0.31); NS: $37,251.78, OS: $31,024.18], and hospital stays [SMD: 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01-0.04); NS: 3.32 days, OS: 3.23 days], while with no significant differences in superficial surgical site infections [OR: 1.12 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.31); NS: 1.70%, OS: 1.13%], deep surgical site infections [OR: 1.09 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.20); NS: 0.78%, OS: 0.67%], wound dehiscence [OR: 1.10 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.22); NS: 0.66%, OS: 0.57%], pneumonia [OR: 1.06 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.22); NS: 1.29%, OS: 1.13%], urinary tract infections [OR: 1.22 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.38); NS: 1.51%, OS: 1.31%], sepsis [OR: 1.25 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.61); NS: 0.80%, OS: 0.58%], or pulmonary embolism [OR: 1.13 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.51); NS: 0.41%, OS: 0.35%]. NS patients showed lower, though insignificant, rates of deep vein thrombosis [OR: 0.95; NS: 0.66%, OS: 0.57%], unplanned readmissions [OR: 1.00; NS: 4.64%, OS: 4.67%], and reoperations [OR: 0.91; NS: 3.94%, OS: 4.25%] compared to OS patients. Despite differing training backgrounds, NS and OS show comparable outcomes overall, with unique strengths suggesting that collaborative efforts may enhance lumbar surgery outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40102318What 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.