The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society
-
Review
Level of evidence of clinical spinal research and its correlation with journal impact factor.
Over the past two decades, there has been a growing recognition and emphasis on the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM). The level of evidence (LOE) is used to classify clinical studies based on their quality and design. To compare the quality of scientific journals, the impact factor (IF) is the most widely used ranking measure. However, the calculation of IF is not directly dependent on the quality or LOE of clinical articles published in a journal. ⋯ Spinal surgery journals with a higher IF contain a larger proportion of studies with high LOE, however most clinical articles provide level IV evidence of which the highest proportion are therapeutic studies. Clinicians, researchers, and journal editors should work hand in hand to enhance evidence-based practice in spinal care.
-
Despite an increase in physician and public awareness and advances in infection control practices, surgical site infection (SSI) remains to be one of the most common complications after an operation. Surgical site infections have been shown to decrease health-related quality of life, double the risk of readmission, prolong the length of hospital stay, and increase hospital costs. ⋯ There is strong evidence in the literature that optimizing specific preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables can significantly lower the risk of developing an SSI.
-
Given the unsustainable costs of the US health-care system, health-care purchasers, payers, and hospital systems are adopting the concept of value-based purchasing by shifting care away from low-quality providers or hospitals. Legislation now allows public reporting of these quality rankings. True measures of quality, such as surgical morbidity and validated questionnaires of effectiveness, are burdensome and costly to collect. Hence, patients' satisfaction with care has emerged as a commonly used metric as a proxy for quality because of its feasibility of collection. However, patient satisfaction metrics have yet to be validated as a measure of overall quality of surgical spine care. ⋯ Patient satisfaction is not a valid measure of overall quality or effectiveness of surgical spine care. Patient satisfaction metrics likely represent the patient's subjective contentment with health-care service, a distinct aspect of care. Satisfaction metrics are important patient-centered measures of health-care service but should not be used as a proxy for overall quality, safety, or effectiveness of surgical spine care.
-
Previous studies have investigated the relationship between the degeneration grade of the intervertebral disc (IVD) and the flexibility of the functional spinal unit (FSU) but were completed at room temperature without the presence of a compressive follower load. This study builds on previous work by performing the testing under more physiological conditions of a compressive follower load at body temperature and at near 100% humidity. ⋯ The results from this testing quantify the effects of degeneration on spinal biomechanics. Because the testing was conducted under physiological conditions (including a compressive follower load and at body temperature), we expect the measured response to closely match the in vivo response. The testing results can be used to guide the selection of appropriate surgical treatments in the context of IVD degeneration and to validate the mathematical and engineering models of the lumbar spine, including finite element models.