ArticleBrain & spine2026
Beyond raw comparisons: Adjusted analysis reveals only minor inter-hospital differences in ACDF outcomes in Norway.
Article in Brain & spine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Annual reports from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine) suggest notable inter-hospital variation in patient-reported outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for radiculopathy. Resarch question: Do unadjusted comparisons not account for differences in case mix between institutions? Material and methods: This multicenter observational cohort study analyzed data from 7832 patients undergoing ACDF for cervical radiculopathy in Norway between 2014 and 2023. Risk factors for poor outcome were identified by multivariate logistic regression. Outcomes were measured using the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for arm pain, and EQ-5D-5L at 12 months. The proportion of non-successful outcomes for five public hospitals and the private sector was adjusted for patient demographics and risk factors. Results: Unadjusted, the range of non-successful outcomes between hospitals was up to 25%. After risk adjustment, inter-hospital differences diminished markedly (range 1.9%-3.6%). Only private sector status remained statistically significant in all three models. High odds ratios (>2.0) for non-success were observed for medical litigation, prior cervical surgery, duration of arm pain >12 months, and headache as a dominant symptom. Discussion and conclusion: Apparent differences in ACDF outcomes across Norwegian hospitals were largely explained by patient-related risk factors. Adjusted analyses revealed only minor inter-hospital variations. For registry-based quality benchmarking, risk-adjusted reporting is essential to support transparent comparison and informed clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.