ArticleGlobal spine journal2026
Methodological Framework for Global Expert Consensus on Musculoskeletal Infection: Establishing the ICM 2025 Recommendations.
Article in Global spine journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recommendations of the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2025 on Spinal Infections: Part B Tubercular Spondylodiscitis.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Recommendations of the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2025 on Spinal Infections: Part A Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis.Global spine journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study DesignMultiphase methodological framework for international consensus development.ObjectiveThis study describes the structured methodology adopted by the International Consensus Meeting on Infection - ICM 2025 (Spine Section) to formulate globally endorsed recommendations in musculoskeletal infection. The initiative aimed to standardise best practices in prevention, diagnosis, and management through a collaborative, evidence-driven process.MethodsThe consensus was developed through an 11-phase process spanning over 2 years, involving more than 100 global experts in orthopaedic infection. Phases included expert selection, question generation and ranking, systematic evaluation, literature synthesis, inter-delegate discussions, and a final face-to-face meeting. Recommendation statements were refined via iterative feedback and consensus-building techniques, including asynchronous dialogue and voting thresholds. Delegates were selected based on academic merit and regional representation, ensuring a diverse and multidisciplinary panel. Structured timelines ensured transparency and accountability across all phases.ResultsThe outcome was a series of actionable, context-sensitive recommendations, reflecting high-level agreement across diverse healthcare settings. The methodology facilitated consensus on complex infection scenarios where definitive evidence was lacking, incorporating expert judgment and current literature.ConclusionThe ICM 2025 (Spine Section) framework demonstrates a robust model for consensus development in orthopaedic surgery. Its transparent and scalable design ensures reproducibility for future topics requiring global guidance. This methodology sets a precedent for collaborative guideline generation in musculoskeletal care.
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.