- •SpineSage and the Risk Assessment Tool from Ratliff et al. are well calibrated for spine surgery
- •The NSQIP Risk Calculator systemically underestimates the risk of complications after spine surgery
- •Decision curve analysis suggests that using SpineSage may help clinicians and patients determine whether to undertake surgery
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
- Trends in lumbar spinal fusion—a literature review.J Spine Surg. 2020; 6: 752-761https://doi.org/10.21037/jss-20-492
- The ‘three-legged stool’: a system for spinal informed consent.Bone Jt J. 2016; (98-B:1427–30)https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B11.37965
Iezzoni, LI. Risk adjustment for measuring health care outcomes. 2020, Chi; n.d.
- Predicting medical complications after spine surgery: a validated model using a prospective surgical registry.Spine J. 2014; 14: 291-299https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.043
- Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons.J Am Coll Surg. 2013; 217 (e3): 833-842https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.385
- Predicting occurrence of spine surgery complications using “Big Data” modeling of an administrative claims database.J Bone Jt Surg. 2016; 98: 824-834https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00301
- Development of a preoperative predictive model for major complications following adult spinal deformity surgery.J Neurosurg Spine. 2017; 26: 736-743https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.10.SPINE16197
- The Seattle spine score: predicting 30-day complication risk in adult spinal deformity surgery.J Clin Neurosci. 2017; 43: 247-255https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2017.06.012
- Development of a risk prediction model with improved clinical utility in elective cervical and lumbar spine surgery.Spine. 2020; 45: E542-E551https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003317
- Predicting complication risk in spine surgery: a prospective analysis of a novel risk assessment tool.J Neurosurg Spine. 2017; 27: 81-91https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.12.SPINE16969
- Predicting medical complications in spine surgery: evaluation of a novel online risk calculator.Eur Spine J. 2018; 27: 2449-2456https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5707-9
- Predictive validity of the ACS-NSQIP surgical risk calculator in geriatric patients undergoing lumbar surgery.Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96: e8416https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008416
- Availability and reporting quality of external validations of machine-learning prediction models with orthopedic surgical outcomes: a systematic review.Acta Orthop. 2021; 92: 385-393https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2021.1910448
Risk Assessment Tool for Spine Surgery Procedures, 2020. App Store n.d. Available at: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/risk-assessment-tool-for-spine-surgery-procedures/id1087663216. Accessed September 13, 2021.
SpineSage n.d. 2020. Available at: https://depts.washington.edu/spinersk/. Accessed June 17, 2022.
ACS Risk Calculator - Patient Information n.d. Available at: https://riskcalculator.facs.org/RiskCalculator/PatientInfo.jsp. 2020, Accessed September 13, 2021.
- A machine learning approach for predictive models of adverse events following spine surgery.Spine J. 2019; 19: 1772-1781https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2019.06.018
- Can the American college of surgeons risk calculator predict 30-day complications after spine surgery?.Spine. 2020; 45: 621-628https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003340
- Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement.BMC Med. 2015; 13: 1https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0241-z
- Development of an index to characterize the “Invasiveness” of spine surgery: validation by comparison to blood loss and operative time.Spine. 2008; 33: 2651-2661https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818dad07
- Sample size considerations for the external validation of a multivariable prognostic model: a resampling study: sample size considerations for validating a prognostic model.Stat Med. 2016; 35: 214-226https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6787
- Assessing calibration of prognostic risk scores.Stat Methods Med Res. 2016; 25: 1692-1706https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280213497434
- The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity.Ann Surg. 2013; 258: 1-7https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318296c732
- The comprehensive complication index (CCI®): added value and clinical perspectives 3 years “Down the Line.Ann Surg. 2017; 265: 1045-1050https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002132
- The comprehensive complication index is related to frailty in elderly surgical patients.J Surg Res. 2019; 244: 218-224https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.06.011
- The comprehensive complication index (CCI) is a more sensitive complication index than the conventional Clavien–Dindo classification in radical gastric cancer surgery.Gastric Cancer. 2018; 21: 171-181https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-017-0728-3
- Clinical validation of the comprehensive complication index as a measure of postoperative morbidity at a surgical department: a prospective study.Ann Surg. 2018; 268: 838-844https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002839
- Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation.Eur Heart J. 2014; 35: 1925-1931https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu207
- Use of Brier score to assess binary predictions.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 938-939https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.009
- Graphical assessment of internal and external calibration of logistic regression models by using loess smoothers.Stat Med. 2014; 33: 517-535https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5941
- The precision–recall curve overcame the optimism of the receiver operating characteristic curve in rare diseases.J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68: 855-859https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.02.010
- Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach.Biometrics. 1988; 44: 837-845https://doi.org/10.2307/2531595
- Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.Med Decis Making. 2006; 26: 565-574https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989×06295361
- A simple, step-by-step guide to interpreting decision curve analysis.Diagn Progn Res. 2019; 3: 18https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-019-0064-7
Predicting Adverse Events after Spinal Surgery. 2020, <img height="65" width="250" src="st.jpg"/></div>n.d. Available at: https://spineaepredictor.shinyapps.io/app-1/. Accessed September 13, 2021.
- Letter to the Editor concerning “Predicting medical complications in spine surgery: evaluation of a novel online risk calculator”.Eur Spine J. 2018; 27 (by M. F. Kasparek et al. (Eur Spine J)): 2885-2886https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5780-0
- Against quantiles: categorization of continuous variables in epidemiologic research, and its discontents.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12: 21https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-21
- Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): Explanation and Elaboration.Ann Intern Med. 2015; 162: W1https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0698
- The accuracy of Medicare's hospital claims data: progress has been made, but problems remain.Am J Public Health. 1992; 82: 243-248https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.82.2.243
- Accuracy of medical claims for identifying cardiovascular and bleeding events after myocardial infarction.JAMA Cardiol. 2017; 2: 750-757https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2017.1460
- Accuracy of medical billing data against the electronic health record in the measurement of colorectal cancer screening rates.BMJ Open Qual. 2020; 9e000856https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000856
- PROBAST: a tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies: explanation and elaboration.Ann Intern Med. 2019; 170: W1https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-1377
- Decision curve analysis to evaluate the clinical benefit of prediction models.Spine J. 2021; (S1529943021001121)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.02.024
FDA device/drug status: Not applicable.
Author disclosures: MCJ: Nothing to disclose. JFB: Nothing to disclose.
The manuscript submitted does not contain information about medical device(s)/drug(s).
This study was approved by our institutional Clinical Audit Support Unit, approval number 4091. Informed consent was not required.