ReviewGlobal spine journal2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring in Spinal Deformity Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study DesignSystematic review and diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis.ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM) for detecting postoperative neurologic deficits in spinal deformity surgery and assess performance across monitoring modalities.MethodsA systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (2000-2026) was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting intraoperative neuromonitoring and postoperative neurologic outcomes were included. Diagnostic accuracy metrics were calculated from contingency tables and pooled using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses were performed by monitoring modality.ResultsA total of 43 studies were included in the systematic review. Of these, 38 had constructable 2x2 tables and contributed to the specificity and false-positive rate analyses, while 36 contributed to the sensitivity, false-negative rate, and diagnostic-odds ratio models. Pooled sensitivity was 90.1% (95% CI, 83.8-94.2%), and pooled specificity was 95.4% (95% CI, 93.0-97.0%). The diagnostic odds ratio was 206.8 (95% CI, 92.8-460.9). Heterogeneity was observed (I
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.