ArticleBrain & spine2025
Spine endoscopic surgery establishment for disc disease (Neurocore-SENSED): an open and decentralized consensus.
Article in Brain & spine, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) has evolved considerably, yet there remains a lack of consensus on patient selection, technical specifications, and outcome reporting. This heterogeneity hinders collaborative efforts to establish comprehensive evidence-based practices. Research question: To develop core outcome sets (COS) and reporting guidelines for ESS for disc disease through an international consensus. Material and methods: We established a multidisciplinary, international expert panel through literature review and peer-to-peer recruitment. Between January and April 2025, we employed a three-round modified Delphi technique. Items spanned three domains: patient characteristics, practices and outcomes. Propositions endorsed by ≥ 75 % of participants were classified as 'strong' and included in the COS. Those with 50-75 % were reconsidered in the subsequent round, requiring ≥66 % for inclusion as 'moderate'. Results: The panel consisted of 77 spine surgeons from Europe (61 %), Asia (14 %), and North America (13 %), with 58 completing all three rounds. Of 183 items (165 initially provided, 18 participant add-ons), agreement was reached on 99 items (82 strongly and 17 moderately). Key consensus elements included demographics, comorbidities, clinical complaints, imaging findings, surgical indications, technical parameters, and outcome measures such as pain scores, functional outcomes, and complications. Discussion and conclusion: We established the Neurocore-SENSED framework, comprising COS and reporting guidelines for ESS for disc disease. This consensus addresses fundamental heterogeneity in ESS research, complementing existing nomenclature and indication-specific guidelines. By enhancing consistency, comparability, and quality of ESS research, this framework aims to accelerate the development of evidence-based practices that optimize patient outcomes in this rapidly advancing field.
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.