MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088811969 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181d830de

Surgeon Perceptions and Reported Complications in Spine Surgery

2010· review· en· W2088811969 on OpenAlexaff
Mark B. Dekutoski, Daniel C. Norvell, Joseph R. Dettori, Michael G. Fehlings, Jens R. Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGrading (engineering)Systematic reviewEvidence-based medicineMEDLINEComplicationCervical spineSurgeryPhysical therapyGeneral surgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To define the term "complications" from the spine surgery literature and contrast this with definitions from other federal institutions, to summarize the incidence of adverse events in cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine surgery, to include the factors that contribute to these events, and to determine the relationship between complications and patient centered outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Efforts to understand and reduce complications in medicine, and spine surgery in particular have been hampered as a result of the lack of a meaningful and universally acceptable definition. The complex field of spine surgery has been a particularly challenging area for the development of a consensus to constructively describe these "undesirable/unanticipated developments arising during or out of the delivery of health care." Furthermore, an overall understanding of expected complication rates after major spine surgery is lacking. METHODS: A systematic review of the English literature was undertaken for articles published between 1990 and December 2008. Electronic and federal databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify articles defining complications and reporting rates of spine surgical complications. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria and disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS.: The definitions for complications in the spine literature and federal agencies are inconsistent and at times conflicting. Mortality rates for cervical spine and lumbar spine surgery are <1%. For thoracic spine surgery, rates range from 0.3% to 7%. Complication rates range from 5% to 19%, 7% to 18%, and 4% to 14% after cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine surgery, respectively. Findings from a single study indicate that major complications may have an impact on 1-year self-perceived general health. However, minor complications may not. CONCLUSION: We define a complication as an unintended and undesirable diagnostic or therapeutic event that may impact the patient's care. Complications should be recorded and analyzed relative to disease severity, patient comorbidities, and ultimately their effect on patient outcomes. Further work needs to be done to develop a complication risk impact index that has the ability to help us assess and communicate the interaction of patient comorbidities and complication severity on patient centered outcomes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations88
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207