ArticleActa neurochirurgica2026
Implementation of a prospective neurosurgical complication registry in routine clinical practice.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReliable and complete documentation is a prerequisite for quality improvement in neurosurgical care. To strengthen internal process monitoring and reduce variability in documentation practices, our department implemented a structured, web-based neurosurgical complication documentation and quality assurance registry combining automated data imports from the hospital information system with minimal standardized manual inputs. The year 2024 represented the first full operational cycle of the system.
methodsThis quality-improvement study evaluated exclusively process-related parameters of the complication documentation registry and did not include analysis of clinical content or outcome variables. Although the registry contains prospectively documented clinical and treatment-related data, the present evaluation was limited to system integration, documentation completeness, frequency of missing mandatory documentation, and performance of reporting mechanisms. Analyses were based solely on de-identified system-level metadata reflecting documentation status. Documentation completeness and workflow adherence were analyzed descriptively over time.
resultsThe registry was successfully integrated into routine clinical workflow across all neurosurgical units and across all hospital wards responsible for the management or discharge of neurosurgical patients. Documentation completeness improved steadily throughout the year, increasing from 77% in the first quarter to 88% in the fourth quarter when assessed after a predefined follow-up interval. Automated reporting identified incomplete documentation entries primarily during the early implementation phase, with alert frequencies decreasing by approximately 48% over the course of the year. Documentation completeness continued to improve beyond the formal observation period, and all inpatient stays from the 2024 cohort were fully documented during follow-up. Progressive improvements across units indicated growing feasibility, acceptance, and compliance within the clinical teams.
conclusionThe structured multi-step design, combining automated data integration, binary discharge screening, and dedicated detailed documentation by designated clinicians, appeared effective in improving documentation completeness and workflow adherence. This process-oriented evaluation provides a useful structural basis for future quality improvement initiatives and ethically approved clinical research based on high-fidelity routinely collected data.
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.