ArticleNeurospine2026
Toward a Candidate Endoscopic Spine Surgery Registry Framework: Lessons From Global Spine Registry Models.
Article in Neurospine, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEndoscopic spine surgery (ESS) has expanded rapidly, but existing spine registries do not consistently capture ESS-specific technical variables, ultra-early recovery trajectories, selective imaging validation, or dissemination-related learning-curve effects. This review synthesizes established spine registry models, contemporary consensus initiatives, and digital follow-up approaches to propose a candidate ESS-specific registry framework and preliminary Minimum Data Set (MDS) for future validation.
methodsA structured narrative review was conducted on national and multinational spine registries, relevant consensus initiatives, and digital follow-up models. Sources were reviewed with emphasis on governance, data architecture, workflow design, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) integration, follow-up structure, data linkage, validation strategies, and implementation feasibility.
resultsEstablished registries provide a methodological foundation for benchmarking, complication surveillance, longitudinal PROM capture, and real-world evidence generation. However, ESS requires modular augmentation of existing registry infrastructures to capture approach-specific operative details, early recovery, selective imaging phenotypes, and governance-controlled maturity indicators. The proposed candidate MDS is organized into 4 domains: (1) baseline case-mix and phenotyping, (2) procedure-specific technical and perioperative variables, (3) selective quantitative imaging and morphometric validation, and (4) structured longitudinal outcome surveillance. The framework prioritizes an essential core dataset while separating recommended, optional, research-oriented, and governance-controlled modules, including digitally enabled early follow-up, opioid-related outcomes, radiation exposure, advanced imaging, and learning-curve variables.
conclusionA candidate ESS-specific registry framework may support harmonized data capture, real-world evidence generation, quality feedback, and future registry-based research. Formal Delphi consensus, multicenter feasibility testing, and staged integration into existing spine registry infrastructures are required before broader implementation.
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.