Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 86 (5), 534-44

Evidence and Practice in Spine Registries

Affiliations
Review

Evidence and Practice in Spine Registries

Miranda L van Hooff et al. Acta Orthop.

Abstract

Background and purpose: We performed a systematic review and a survey in order to (1) evaluate the evidence for the impact of spine registries on the quality of spine care, and with that, on patient-related outcomes, and (2) evaluate the methodology used to organize, analyze, and report the "quality of spine care" from spine registries.

Methods: To study the impact, the literature on all spinal disorders was searched. To study methodology, the search was restricted to degenerative spinal disorders. The risk of bias in the studies included was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Additionally, a survey among registry representatives was performed to acquire information about the methodology and practice of existing registries.

Results: 4,273 unique references up to May 2014 were identified, and 1,210 were eligible for screening and assessment. No studies on impact were identified, but 34 studies were identified to study the methodology. Half of these studies (17 of the 34) were judged to have a high risk of bias. The survey identified 25 spine registries, representing 14 countries. The organization of these registries, methods used, analytical approaches, and dissemination of results are presented.

Interpretation: We found a lack of evidence that registries have had an impact on the quality of spine care, regardless of whether intervention was non-surgical and/or surgical. To improve the quality of evidence published with registry data, we present several recommendations. Application of these recommendations could lead to registries showing trends, monitoring the quality of spine care given, and ultimately improving the value of the care given to patients with degenerative spinal disorders.

Figures

None
Flow chart of studies through the different phases of the systematic review.

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 11 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Adogwa O, Huang M I, Thompson P M, et al. No difference in postoperative complications, pain, and functional outcomes up to 2 years after incidental durotomy in lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, multi-institutional, propensity-matched analysis of 1,741 patients. Spine J. 2014;14(9):1828–34. - PubMed
    1. AHRQ. 2014. http://archive.ahrq.gov/consumer/qnt/qntqlook.html. 2015 Feb 09; Available. Accessed.
    1. Benson K, Hartz A J. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1878–86. - PubMed
    1. Bridwell K H, Berven S, Glassman S, et al. Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32(20):2220–5. - PubMed
    1. Colditz G A. Overview of the epidemiology methods and applications: strengths and limitations of observational study designs. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2010;50(Suppl 1):10–12. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

Feedback