Quality Assessment for Reporting Complications and Adverse Events in Spinal Surgery: A Proposed 5-Item Checklist

Vildoza, Santiago; Cabrera, Juan P.; Guiroy, Alfredo; Carazzo, Charles André; Gagliardi, Martín; Joaquim, Andrei Fernandes; Camino-Willhuber, Gastón

doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2021.10.189

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this study, however, indicate that this goal has not been achieved and that the reporting of outcome parameters continues to be heterogeneous and arbitrary. While in our analysis, two thirds of the articles targeted general surgery or transplantation procedures, the problem of poor outcome reporting extends to many surgical areas 23,24 . For example, an analysis of articles published in 5 top spine journals using a prespecified 5-item checklist showed the paucity of information provided, with only 13% (38/292) of the articles fulfilling the 5 basic criteria 24 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…While in our analysis, two thirds of the articles targeted general surgery or transplantation procedures, the problem of poor outcome reporting extends to many surgical areas. 23,24 For example, an analysis of articles published in 5 top spine journals using a prespecified 5-item checklist showed the paucity of information provided, with only 13% (38/292) of the articles fulfilling the 5 basic criteria. 24 Most journals, even at the top level, fail to ask for more standardization of outcome reporting in their instructions to authors and during the review process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…23,24 For example, an analysis of articles published in 5 top spine journals using a prespecified 5-item checklist showed the paucity of information provided, with only 13% (38/292) of the articles fulfilling the 5 basic criteria. 24 Most journals, even at the top level, fail to ask for more standardization of outcome reporting in their instructions to authors and during the review process. A possible reason for that may be not only be a lack of available guidelines for doing so from the academic and clinical audience, but also from the patients, payers, and policy makers perspectives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Surgical Outcome Reporting. Moving From a Comic to a Tragic Opera?

Abbassi,

Pfister,

Domenghino

et al. 2024

Annals of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To assess the current quality of surgical outcome reporting in the medical literature, and to provide recommendations for improvement. Background: In 1996, the Lancet labelled surgery as a “comic opera” mostly referring to the poor quality of outcome reporting in the literature impeding improvement in surgical quality and patient care. Methods: We screened three 1st tier and two 2nd tier surgical journals, as well as three leading medical journals for original articles reporting on results of surgical procedures published over a recent 18-month period. The quality of outcome reporting was assessed using a pre-specified 12-item checklist. Results: 627 articles reporting surgical outcomes were analyzed, including 125 randomized controlled trials (RCT). Only 1 (0·2%) article met all 12 criteria of the checklist, while 356 articles (57%) fulfilled less than half of criteria. The poorest reporting was on cumulative morbidity burden, which was missing in 94% of articles (n=591) as well as patient reported outcomes missing in 83% of publications (n=518). Comparing journal groups for the individual criterion, we found moderate to very strong statistical evidence for better quality of reporting in high versus lower impact journals for 7 of 12 criteria, and strong statistical evidence for better reporting of patient-reported outcomes in medical versus surgical journals (P<0·001). Conclusion: The quality of outcome reporting in the medical literature remains poor lacking improvement over the past 20 years on most key endpoints. The implementation of standardized outcome reporting is urgently needed to minimize biased interpretation of data thereby enabling improved patient care and the elaboration of meaningful guidelines.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Surgical Outcome Reporting. Moving From a Comic to a Tragic Opera?

Abbassi,

Pfister,

Domenghino

et al. 2024

Annals of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Reply to A. Lazary’s Expert’s Comment concerning grand rounds case entitled "Percutaneous cement discoplasty for the treatment of advanced degenerative disk disease in elderly patients” (C. Sola, et al., Eur Spine J; 2021;30(8):2209–2210. doi:10.1007/s00586-020–06568-4)

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Factors associated with increased length of stay and risk of complications in 336 patients submitted to spine surgery. The role of a validated capture system (SAVES v2) as a first-line tool to properly face the problem

Falzetti,

Griffoni,

Carretta

et al. 2024

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose In this study, we analyzed the use of a validated capture system (Spinal Adverse Events Severity system, SAVES V2) as a first non-technical skill to properly face the relevant problem of surgical complications (SCs) and adverse events (AEs) in spinal surgery. Methods We retrospectively collected AEs occurring in a tertiary referral center for spine surgery from January 2017 to January 2018 and classified them according to SAVES V2 system. We compared this collection of AEs with a prospective collection performed without any classification system. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to determined odds ratio (ORs) for selected potential risk factors of AEs and prolonged length of stay. Results Overall a higher number of AEs was retrospectively recorded using SAVES system compared to the prospective recording without the use of any capture system (97/336 vs 210/336, p < 0.001). The length of stay (LOS) increased in the group of complicated patients for all the procedures examined. In the non-oncological group, LOS was significantly higher for complicated patients compared to uncomplicated patients (F = 44.11, p = 0.0000). Similar results have been obtained in the oncological group of patients. In the multivariate regression model surgical time and postoperative AEs emerged as risk factors for prolonged LOS, while only the presence of previous surgeries was confirmed as risk factor for AEs. Conclusion Considering that the rate of AEs and SCs in spinal surgery is still high despite the improvement of technical skills, we suggest the use of SAVES V2 capture system as a first-line tool to face the problem.

show abstract

Quality Assessment for Reporting Complications and Adverse Events in Spinal Surgery: A Proposed 5-Item Checklist

Cited by 3 publications

References 17 publications

Surgical Outcome Reporting. Moving From a Comic to a Tragic Opera?

Surgical Outcome Reporting. Moving From a Comic to a Tragic Opera?

Reply to A. Lazary’s Expert’s Comment concerning grand rounds case entitled "Percutaneous cement discoplasty for the treatment of advanced degenerative disk disease in elderly patients” (C. Sola, et al., Eur Spine J; 2021;30(8):2209–2210. doi:10.1007/s00586-020–06568-4)

Factors associated with increased length of stay and risk of complications in 336 patients submitted to spine surgery. The role of a validated capture system (SAVES v2) as a first-line tool to properly face the problem

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About