ReviewCurrent pain and headache reports2026
Spine Centers in Northeastern United States: Assessing Similarities and Disparities to Build more Homogeneity Across the Country.
Review in Current pain and headache reports, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
propose of reviewSpine centers are common, but no standardized regulations govern their designation. Existing certifications are issued by multiple independent organizations and are not necessarily equivalent, while many centers remain non-accredited. Consequently, centers may vary in qualifications, quality of care, and services. This study examined and compared the defining characteristics of spine centers in Northeast America. RECENT
findingsA total of 194 spine centers were identified and compared based on accreditation, services, provider numbers, and proximity to metropolitan areas. Accreditation requirements from The Joint Commission (TJC), Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Aetna, and Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) were analyzed. While substantial overlap existed, Aetna and BCBS largely built upon TJC standards, whereas DNV requirements differed, and exact criteria varied across organizations. Overall, 56% of centers were accredited. Compared with non-accredited centers, accredited centers more frequently employed neurosurgeons, offered multidisciplinary care, and were affiliated with academic medical centers. Logistic regression demonstrated that employment of neurosurgeons and academic affiliation independently predicted accreditation. Accredited centers also tended to be closer to metropolitan areas and employed more providers. However, rates of non-surgical treatment, minimally invasive surgery, and physical therapy services were similar regardless of accreditation status. Although accredited centers reported certain characteristics at higher rates, the variability between accreditation requirements and similarity between accredited and non-accredited centers could confuse prospective patients. While this study provides a preliminary profile of Northeast spine centers, our findings reinforce the need for standardized guidelines for spine center status.
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.