Measuring success in spine care.

Jens Chapman
{"title":"Measuring success in spine care.","authors":"Jens Chapman","doi":"10.1055/s-0033-1341595","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted. \n \nAlbert Einstein \n \nSpine surgery can be one of the most rewarding of medical specialties, yet spine care has invoked questions and even controversy from some circles. Undoubtedly, the well-being of humans is closely tied to a well-functioning spine, but maintaining it in well-functioning conditions through the course of a long and active lifetime is uncommon. Although it is well-known that a dysfunctional spine can cause its owner severe disability due to structural, neurologic, or painful circumstances, we frequently struggle to quantify these conditions and remain incomplete in providing irrefutable evidence of the effectiveness of some of our interventions. In our quest for validation of conditions and our interventions, we resort to metrics, frequently applied through tests. While these promise objectivity through reproducible quantification, the question remains: What do these tests actually measure and what do the results actually mean? \n \nAOSpine recently published a comprehensive compilation of measurements used in spine care (a project in which I had the honor of serving as a coeditor). With this third book, Measurements in Spine Care,1 in a series titled Science in Spine Care, AOSpine set out to review all meaningful, clinical, spine-related tests, be they neurological, laboratory, radiographic, and more. The tests were then rated in a fashion similar to popular publications such as Consumer Reports and US News and World Report. As in our previous books, Spine Outcomes Measures and Instruments2 and Spine Classifications and Severity Measures,3 the editors were surprised with the paucity of meaningful and well-validated objective measurements in our discipline. Similar to our observations in the other areas of patient-related outcome measures and diseases/injury classification/severity ratings, our field is widely bereft of objective, reproducible quantifications of virtually all domains in which the well-being and function of spine are being tested. One of Albert Einstein's most famous insights yet again seems to be proven. \n \nThere are, however, many areas in which progress has been made, and functionality can be tested, such as in pulmonary function as an indirect expression of torso health and simple walking or balancing tests for myelopathy. Many of these measurement opportunities are little known within the spine community due to a persistent “silo-mentality.” Hopefully, this book will provide inspiration to the scientifically motivated members of the spine community to advance our endeavors with sound applications to measure success. \n \nAs for EBSJ, we have an easier time to measure success: readership numbers, being listed in large search engines, and impact factor. Aside from boasting one of the largest readerships in spine surgery with over 10,000 readers worldwide, we are now listed in PubMed and all the issues through early 2012 have been downloaded with a catching up to present day expected over the next few months. We have also made the strategic decision to begin merging some of our operations with Global Spine Journal published by Thieme. While maintaining our unique publication and in-depth review style, we will now be able to reach more colleagues and expand our popular systematic reviews to as many as four articles per issue by working with a respected large commercial publisher and offering expanded publication options to our scientifically minded spine practitioner readership. We hope that many of you will continue on the path of improving the quality of spine care and proving the value of what we are doing for our patients and society at large through steady application of sound, scientifically derived insights. Please do join us in this quest with your article submissions, reviews, and editorial board work with Global Spine Journal and Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal as we meet the challenges of tomorrow's health care by learning from the failures of the past and present through sound scientific principles. \n \n“Failure is success if we learn from it.” \n \nMalcolm Forbes","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"4 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0033-1341595","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1341595","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted. Albert Einstein Spine surgery can be one of the most rewarding of medical specialties, yet spine care has invoked questions and even controversy from some circles. Undoubtedly, the well-being of humans is closely tied to a well-functioning spine, but maintaining it in well-functioning conditions through the course of a long and active lifetime is uncommon. Although it is well-known that a dysfunctional spine can cause its owner severe disability due to structural, neurologic, or painful circumstances, we frequently struggle to quantify these conditions and remain incomplete in providing irrefutable evidence of the effectiveness of some of our interventions. In our quest for validation of conditions and our interventions, we resort to metrics, frequently applied through tests. While these promise objectivity through reproducible quantification, the question remains: What do these tests actually measure and what do the results actually mean? AOSpine recently published a comprehensive compilation of measurements used in spine care (a project in which I had the honor of serving as a coeditor). With this third book, Measurements in Spine Care,1 in a series titled Science in Spine Care, AOSpine set out to review all meaningful, clinical, spine-related tests, be they neurological, laboratory, radiographic, and more. The tests were then rated in a fashion similar to popular publications such as Consumer Reports and US News and World Report. As in our previous books, Spine Outcomes Measures and Instruments2 and Spine Classifications and Severity Measures,3 the editors were surprised with the paucity of meaningful and well-validated objective measurements in our discipline. Similar to our observations in the other areas of patient-related outcome measures and diseases/injury classification/severity ratings, our field is widely bereft of objective, reproducible quantifications of virtually all domains in which the well-being and function of spine are being tested. One of Albert Einstein's most famous insights yet again seems to be proven. There are, however, many areas in which progress has been made, and functionality can be tested, such as in pulmonary function as an indirect expression of torso health and simple walking or balancing tests for myelopathy. Many of these measurement opportunities are little known within the spine community due to a persistent “silo-mentality.” Hopefully, this book will provide inspiration to the scientifically motivated members of the spine community to advance our endeavors with sound applications to measure success. As for EBSJ, we have an easier time to measure success: readership numbers, being listed in large search engines, and impact factor. Aside from boasting one of the largest readerships in spine surgery with over 10,000 readers worldwide, we are now listed in PubMed and all the issues through early 2012 have been downloaded with a catching up to present day expected over the next few months. We have also made the strategic decision to begin merging some of our operations with Global Spine Journal published by Thieme. While maintaining our unique publication and in-depth review style, we will now be able to reach more colleagues and expand our popular systematic reviews to as many as four articles per issue by working with a respected large commercial publisher and offering expanded publication options to our scientifically minded spine practitioner readership. We hope that many of you will continue on the path of improving the quality of spine care and proving the value of what we are doing for our patients and society at large through steady application of sound, scientifically derived insights. Please do join us in this quest with your article submissions, reviews, and editorial board work with Global Spine Journal and Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal as we meet the challenges of tomorrow's health care by learning from the failures of the past and present through sound scientific principles. “Failure is success if we learn from it.” Malcolm Forbes
衡量脊柱护理的成功。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信