A Methodological Systematic Review on Surgical Site Infections Following Spinal Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A methodological systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise the validity of preventive effects attributed to prophylactic treatments for surgical site infection (SSI) after spinal surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As a result of a rapidly increasing number of spinal procedures, health care expenditure is expected to increase substantially in the foreseeable future. Administration of effective prophylactic treatments may prevent occurrence of SSIs and may thus result in lower costs. To date, however, no review appraising the methodological quality of studies evaluating prophylactic treatments for spinal SSIs has been published. METHODS: Contemporary studies evaluating the preventive effect of prophylactic interventions on the rate of SSI after spinal surgery were searched through the Medline and EMBASE databases (January 2001 to December 2010). References were retrieved and bias-prone study features were abstracted individually and independently by 2 authors. RESULTS: Eighteen eligible studies were identified, including 6 randomized controlled trials and 12 comparative cohort studies. Most often, antibiotic prophylaxis administration was investigated (n = 7). Included studies covered a wide variation of indications and surgical procedures. Except for 5 studies (28%), applied definitions of SSI outcomes were ambiguous. Although several important methodological aspects, including blinding of outcome assessors and attrition, were poorly reported in randomized controlled trials, these studies were far less susceptible to bias and confounding as observed in nonrandomized studies. None of the 12 cohort studies adjusted for confounding by matching, stratification, or multivariate regression techniques. CONCLUSION: Given the plethora of previously hypothesized confounding risk factors for a spinal SSI, conduct of nonrandomized comparative therapeutic studies is strongly discouraged. On the other hand, methodological safeguards, including use of standardized definitions of putative confounders and outcomes, should be considered in more detail during the design phase of a randomized trial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.245 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".