Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40697562›Full record

ArticleBrain & spine2025

Diagnostic reliability of the FinSpine nationwide spine surgery registry: Comparison between clinical registry diagnoses and blinded imaging assessments.

Jussi P Repo, Katri Pernaa, Liisa Pekkanen, Juho Hatakka, Heikki Mäntymäki, Antti Malmivaara, Henri Salo, Eetu Suominen, Jyrki Kankare, Jukka Huttunen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Jussi P RepoUnit of Musculoskeletal Diseases, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Tampere University Hospital and Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Katri PernaaDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Turku University Hospital, and University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Liisa PekkanenDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Hospital Nova of Central Finland, Finland.
Juho HatakkaDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Turku University Hospital, and University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Heikki MäntymäkiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tampere University Hospital and Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Antti MalmivaaraDepartment of Data and Analytics, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Henri SaloDatasets and Dataproducts, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Eetu SuominenThe Primary Health Care Services, Wellbeing Services County of North Savo, Kuopio, Finland.
Jyrki KankareDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, HUS Helsinki University Hospital, Finland.
Jukka HuttunenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Kuopio University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The Finnish national spine surgery registry (FinSpine) collects data on patients, operative procedures, and outcomes. Research question: Is the reliability of diagnosis collection for the FinSpine registry across various institutions sufficient? Methods and methods: A random sample of 110 spine surgeries performed in Finland since 2017 was selected from the FinSpine registry. Details of the operative procedures, including characteristics of the hospitals, primary and secondary diagnoses, the anatomical level of the spine surgery, and the date of the surgery, were recorded. Three experienced spine surgeons assessed radiographic imaging independently on two occasions with a one-month interval. Cohen and Fleiss kappa values were calculated for inter- and intra-rater reliability with registry diagnoses as the standard. Results: Altogether, 85 patients were included in the final analysis. The intra-rater reliability for primary diagnosis was moderate to almost perfect among all three evaluators, with Cohen's kappa values ranging from 0.765 to 0.847. In the inter-rater reliability analysis, there was moderate agreement between evaluators 1 and 2 (Cohen's κ = 0.592, SD 0.061) and evaluators 1 and 3 (κ = 0.595, SD 0.061). The agreement was substantial between evaluators 2 and 3 (κ = 0.676, SD 0.057). The Fleiss' kappa value was 0.622 (95 % CI from 0.570 to 0.673). The inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.596 to 0.652 when the evaluators' diagnoses were compared with those in the registry. Discussion and conclusion: The primary diagnoses recorded in the FinSpine registry are reproducible and reliable, making the registry data valuable for further research and clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

DiagnosisDiagnosticFinSpineRegistryReliabilitySpine

Identifiers

PMID40697562
PMCPMC12281060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.