ArticleBMC surgery2026
Agreement and discordance between the modified thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score and the thoracolumbar AOSpine injury score in guiding surgical decision-making for thoracolumbar fractures: a comparative study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the agreement and the differences between the modified Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (mTLICS) system and the AO Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Score (TL AOSIS) in guiding surgical decision-making for thoracolumbar fractures.
methodsThe clinical and imaging data of 100 patients with thoracolumbar fractures admitted to our hospital between January 2021 and December 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Two orthopedic surgeons, blinded to the patients' clinical outcomes, independently evaluated the cases using both scoring systems and provided treatment recommendations. Disagreements were resolved by a senior attending surgeon. Agreement between the two systems' treatment categories was quantified by weighted Cohen's κ with 95% confidence intervals from paired 3 × 3 cross-tabulations, and interobserver reliability was assessed before consensus adjudication.
resultsThe two systems assigned the same treatment category in 86 of 100 patients (86.0%; unweighted κ = 0.773, 95% CI 0.666-0.881; linear-weighted κ = 0.820), with no significant asymmetry (McNemar-Bowker P = 0.160). Agreement was substantial in both the 57 neurologically intact patients (κ = 0.696) and the 43 patients with neurological impairment (κ = 0.619). Surgery was recommended by mTLICS versus TL AOSIS in 24.6% versus 19.2% of neurologically intact patients and in 90.7% versus 81.4% of those with neurological impairment. Interobserver reliability before consensus was substantial to high (linear-weighted κ = 0.88 for mTLICS and 0.75 for TL AOSIS). The two scoring systems showed substantial agreement in treatment recommendations. In burst fractures with intervertebral disc injury, mTLICS tended to assign cases to higher treatment categories than TL AOSIS, although these subgroup differences were not statistically significant.
conclusionmTLICS and TL AOSIS show substantial concordance as decision-support tools for thoracolumbar fractures. For burst fractures with intervertebral disc involvement, mTLICS tends to recommend surgery more often, reflecting a difference in classification behaviour rather than a demonstrated clinical advantage. Because no outcome data were analysed, whether this tendency improves patient outcomes remains to be determined.
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.