Diversity and Commonalities in the Care of Spine Trauma Internationally
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Brief Study Design. Questionnaires administered to practicing orthopedic and neurosurgical spine surgeons from North America, Europe, Asia, Australia, and New Zealand. Objective. To determine diversity and commonalities in the treatment of spine trauma internationally. Summary of Background Data. Previous studies have had suggested that there is significant variability in the treatment of common spinal trauma conditions. Methods. Questionnaires based on 10 commonly encountered spine trauma cases were administered to 77 experienced spinal surgeons across 4 continents. The questions for each case scenario were similar, but were tailored to be appropriate for the case being presented. Questions focused on the discipline of the specialist who would treat the injury, the treatment itself, and how long it would take for the patient to return home or to work. Questions pertaining to investigations, funding, estimated in-hospital length of stay, prehospital care, and mortality were also included. Each question was followed by 4 to 8 options from which the surgeon could chose a response. Data were analyzed using, SAS v9.2, a software analytical package, to determine the level of agreement between respondents on different items. Results. Of the 77 surgeons completing the questionnaire, 66% were fellowship trained spine surgeons, 20% orthopedic surgeons, and 14% neurosurgeons. In all regions, the majority of spinal trauma care is provided in a regional trauma center with dedicated spine surgeons. In all but 1 case significant differences were found in treatment with European and Asian surgeons have a higher operative rate. A combined anterior/posterior surgical approach was more commonly used in Europe and Asia. North American patients are expected to have a shorter hospital stay and return to work earlier. Significant differences exist between Asia and the other regions with regard to prehospital care. Conclusion. These findings suggest that despite the subspecialty focus in the care of spinal trauma, there continues to exist a lack of consensus among treating surgeons as to the optimum management and appropriateness of multiple aspects of specific operative and nonoperative interventions and indeed the postinjury management. Questionnaires based on 10 commonly encountered spine trauma cases were administered to 77 experienced spinal surgeons across 4 continents. Despite the subspecialty focus in the care of spinal trauma, there continues to exist a lack of consensus among treating surgeons as to the optimum management and appropriateness of multiple aspects of specific operative and nonoperative interventions and indeed the postinjury management.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».