Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42009915›Full record

ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026

Accuracy in spinal level determination, including transitional vertebrae: an ASReview supported systematic review.

Bart Liebrand, Lisa Braunhofer, Walter van der Weegen, Kris Vissers, Johan Van Goethem, Jan Van Zundert, Mark van den Boogaart, Selina van der Wal

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2026. 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

8 authors.

Bart LiebrandDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands. bart.liebrand@mumc.nl.
Lisa BraunhoferDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Walter van der WeegenBogardeind 2, Anna Hospital, Geldrop, Netherlands.
Kris VissersDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Johan Van GoethemSengkang General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Jan Van ZundertDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Mark van den BoogaartDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Selina van der WalDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAccurate spinal level determination is crucial in spinal imaging and in interventional procedures of the spine. In particular, transitional vertebrae can significantly complicate accurate level identification. This systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of conventional and advanced methods for spinal level determination, with particular attention to thoracic and lumbar transitional vertebrae.

methodsA literature search, supported by the machine learning tool ASReview, was conducted in PubMed Web of Science and Embase for studies published between 1962 and 2026, leading to the inclusion of twenty-nine relevant studies. These were categorized into three groups: conventional methods (fluoroscopy, US, CT, MRI, n = 20), transitional vertebrae-specific studies (n = 4), and advanced methods (intra-operative navigation, algorithms and machine learning, n = 5).

resultsWith conventional methods, varying levels of accuracy were achieved with up to 100% accuracy reported in nine studies. In the studies involving transitional vertebrae no 100% was achieved. Inconsistencies in study designs, patient selection, and risk of bias were noted across the studies. This is considered representative for daily practice. The advanced methods showed an accuracy of 100% in most studies. Clinical recommendations of the existing literature on this topic are summarised.

conclusionsThis review highlights variability in radio-diagnostic use and level determination of spine procedures between medical specialists. Recognizing transitional vertebrae, clear intraoperative imaging, and collaboration between radiologists and interventionists are key. Preoperative MRI or CT scans should be compared with intra operative imaging and, a full spine image obtained if needed. Further research is needed to establish specialization transcending protocols for recognizing transitional anatomy during procedures. The advanced methods show promise, but their cost-effectiveness needs evaluation. Deep learning–based studies progress rapidly and have achieved near-perfect accuracy in detecting spinal anomalies; however, they are not yet applicable to routine clinical use.

Indexed as

Clinical protocolsInterventional spine proceduresMachine learningRadio-diagnostic accuracySpinal imagingSpinal level determinationSystematic reviewTransitional vertebrae

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.