Spine centers of excellence: a systematic review and single-institution description of a spine center of excellence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Centers of excellence (COEs) are interdisciplinary healthcare organizations created with the goal of improving health/economic outcomes in medical treatment for both individuals and health systems, compared to traditionally structured counterparts. Multiple studies have highlighted both societal/individual burdens associated with back pain, underscoring the importance of identifying new avenues for improving both cost/clinical outcomes for this patient population. Here, we utilize available literature to better characterize the features of a spine COE at a tertiary care center and determine the impact of COEs on patient satisfaction and outcomes. Methods: A systematic review describing spine COEs was performed. PubMed, OVID, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus were utilized for electronic literature search. Data including institution, department, pathologies treated, patient satisfaction scores, patient outcomes, and descriptions of the COE, were extracted and analyzed by two reviewers per full-text article. Inclusion criteria consisted of literature describing the organization, purpose, or outcomes of a spine COE, all publication types (except technical/operative report), adult or pediatric patients, publication from inception through September 2021. Exclusion criteria consisted of articles that do not discuss spinal COEs, technical/operative reports, studies unavailable in English language, unavailable full text, or non-human subjects. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Results: Five hundred and sixty-seven unique publications were obtained from the literature search. Of these articles, 20 were included and 547 were excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following full-text review of the 20 publications, 6 contained pertinent data. Quantitative data comparing COE versus non-COE was contradictory in comparing complication rates and episodic costs. Qualitative data included descriptions of spine COE features and cited improved patient care, technical advancements, and individualized care paths as positive aspects of the COE model. Mean risk of bias assessment was 3.67. Discussion: There is little evidence regarding if spine COEs provide an advantage over traditionally organized facilities. The current number and heterogeneity of publications, and lack of standardized metrics used to define a spinal COE are limiting factors. Spinal COE may offer higher value care, reduced complication rates and advancements in knowledge and technical skill.
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 | 0.032 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".