ArticleGlobal spine journal2026
Impact of Structured Data Validation on Case Completeness and Key Quality Indicators in the SWISS Implant Registry (SIRIS Spine): A SINGLE-CENTER Audit.
Article in Global spine journal, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study designRetrospective single-center registry validation audit.ObjectiveTo quantify the impact of semi-automated, chart-adjudicated data validation workflow on case completeness and key quality indicators in the Swiss Implant Registry (SIRIS Spine).MethodsAll Swiss procedure (CHOP)-coded spine surgeries meeting SIRIS Spine inclusion criteria (01/2021-07/2025) were extracted from the hospital information system at a tertiary spine center and reconciled with SIRIS Spine entries. We screened for duplicate patient identification number entries to identify all revision surgeries, and adjudicated discrepancies by operative report review. Reoperation/revision rate analyses focused on the first recorded event. Pre-versus post-validation comparisons used chi-square tests; between-year variation and linear trend were assessed using logistic regression.ResultsValidation for data completeness increased the number of registered surgeries by 21% (N=1,425 to 1,726; p<0.001). Overall, 32% of surgery records required modification during content validation, while 68% remained unchanged (p<0.001). Of modified records, 76% were added and 24% were deleted (p<0.001). Added surgeries were most commonly reoperations/revisions (57%), followed by surgeries for degenerative disease (33%) (p<0.001). Deletions were mainly due to not meeting inclusion criteria (65%) or inaccurate case information 22%) (p<0.001). Dural tear rates changed from 9% to 10% and first-reoperation/revision rates from 10% to 17% after data validation (both p<0.001).ConclusionsAt a single-center, structured data validation improved registry completeness, particularly for revision surgery, and changed benchmark-relevant indicators. Ongoing local validation is needed to ensure reliable quality assurance, benchmarking, and research.
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.