Methods for the Systematic Reviews on Patient Safety During Spine Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To provide a detailed description of the methods undertaken in the systematic search and analytical summary of patient safety issues in spinal surgery, and to describe the process used to come to a clinical recommendation regarding challenges in the management of patients undergoing spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A solid understanding of complication type, incidence, risk factors, and impact is implicit to the physician's role in developing an informed patient centered decision with respect to surgical intervention. We present methods used in conducting the systematic, evidence-based reviews, and expert panel recommendations of key challenges to the spine surgical practice. It is our desire that spine surgeons will use the information from these reviews together with an understanding of their own capacities and experience to better inform patients with respect to potential treatment outcomes, safety, and life impact. METHODS: A systematic search and critical review of the English language literature was undertaken for articles published on the safety of various surgical spine conditions. Citations were screened for relevance using a priori criteria, and relevant studies were critically reviewed. The strength of evidence for the overall body of literature in each topic area was determined by 2 independent reviewers considering study quality, study quantity, and consistency of results. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Findings from studies meeting inclusion criteria were summarized. From these summaries, clinical recommendations were formulated from consensus achieved among subject experts through the Delphi process. RESULTS: We identified and screened 2020 citations in 13 topic areas relating to safety in spine surgery. Of these, 273 met our predetermined inclusion criteria and were used to attempt to answer specific clinical questions within each topic area. CONCLUSION: We undertook systematic reviews to establish a baseline of the current evidence on patient safety issues in spine surgery. This article reports the methods used in the reviews.
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 | 0.311 | 0.436 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.008 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".