MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329784439 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000574

Triage of Spine Surgery Referrals Through a Multidisciplinary Care Pathway

2014· article· en· W2329784439 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chelsea S. Wilgenbusch, Adam Wu, Daryl R. Fourney

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanDiscovery Air (Canada)Royal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTriageMultidisciplinary approachSPINE (molecular biology)Care pathwayMedical emergencyMEDLINEIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyGeneral surgeryHealth careBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective medical record review. OBJECTIVE: To (1) determine if outpatient referrals for low back pain (LBP) and leg pain triaged through a multidisciplinary spine care pathway (group A) were more likely to be candidates for surgery than conventional physician referrals (group B); (2) compare relevant clinical differences in the 2 groups (e.g., diagnosis, pain scores, level of disability); and (3) compare wait times for magnetic resonance imaging and surgical assessment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Saskatchewan Spine Pathway was introduced on the basis of evidence that a co-ordinated, multidisciplinary, and stratified approach to the assessment and management of LBP may improve quality. During early implementation, some physicians began to refer patients to Saskatchewan Spine Pathway clinics, whereas others continued to refer patients directly to the surgeon through the conventional process. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive new outpatient referrals for LBP and leg pain, June 1, 2011 through May 30, 2012 for 2 surgeons. RESULTS: We identified 215 referrals, including 66 (30.7%) in group A and 149 (69.3%) in group B. There was no difference in overall health (mean EuroQol Group 5-Dimension Self-Report Questionnaire visual analogue scale) or lower back-related disability score (Oswestry Disability Index). Group A patients were significantly more likely to be candidates for surgery (59.1% vs. 37.6% for group B; P = 0.0034, χ test), had significantly poorer scores for EuroQol Group 5-Dimension Self-Report Questionnaire mobility, a higher proportion of leg dominant pain, and a lower proportion of back dominant pain. Group A patients also had significantly shorter wait times for magnetic resonance imaging and surgical assessment. CONCLUSION: A co-ordinated multidisciplinary pathway with a stratified approach to LBP assessment and care provided a greater proportion of surgery candidates than the conventional referral process. The implementation of such processes may allow surgeons to restrict their practices to patients who are more likely to benefit from their services, thereby reducing wait times and potentially reducing costs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations59
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207