Research using the Quality Outcomes Database: accomplishments and future steps toward higher-quality real-world evidence

Author:

Asher Anthony L.1,Haid Regis W.2,Stroink Ann R.3,Michalopoulos Giorgos D.45,Alexander A. Yohan45,Zeitouni Daniel1,Chan Andrew K.6,Virk Michael S.7,Glassman Steven D.8,Foley Kevin T.9,Slotkin Jonathan R.10,Potts Eric A.11,Shaffrey Mark E.12,Shaffrey Christopher I.13,Park Paul9,Upadhyaya Cheerag14,Coric Domagoj1,Tumialán Luis M.15,Chou Dean6,Fu Kai-Ming G.7,Knightly John J.16,Orrico Katie O.17,Wang Michael Y.18,Bisson Erica F.19,Mummaneni Praveen V.20,Bydon Mohamad45

Affiliation:

1. Neuroscience Institute, Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates, Carolinas Healthcare System, Charlotte, North Carolina;

2. Atlanta Brain and Spine Care, Atlanta, Georgia;

3. Central Illinois Neuro Health Science, Bloomington, Illinois;

4. Mayo Clinic Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota;

5. Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota;

6. Department of Neurological Surgery, Columbia University, The Och Spine Hospital at NewYork-Presbyterian, New York, New York;

7. Department of Neurological Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York;

8. Norton Leatherman Spine Center, Louisville, Kentucky;

9. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee;

10. Department of Neurosurgery, Geisinger Health, Danville, Pennsylvania;

11. Department of Neurological Surgery, Indiana University, Goodman Campbell Brain and Spine, Indianapolis, Indiana;

12. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia;

13. Department of Neurological Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina;

14. Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina;

15. Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona;

16. Atlantic Neurosurgical Specialists, Morristown, New Jersey;

17. Washington Office, American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons, Washington, DC;

18. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Miami, Florida;

19. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; and

20. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was established in 2012 by the NeuroPoint Alliance, a nonprofit organization supported by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Currently, the QOD has launched six different modules to cover a broad spectrum of neurosurgical practice—namely lumbar spine surgery, cervical spine surgery, brain tumor, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), functional neurosurgery for Parkinson’s disease, and cerebrovascular surgery. This investigation aims to summarize research efforts and evidence yielded through QOD research endeavors. METHODS The authors identified all publications from January 1, 2012, to February 18, 2023, that were produced by using data collected prospectively in a QOD module without a prespecified research purpose in the context of quality surveillance and improvement. Citations were compiled and presented along with comprehensive documentation of the main study objective and take-home message. RESULTS A total of 94 studies have been produced through QOD efforts during the past decade. QOD-derived literature has been predominantly dedicated to spinal surgical outcomes, with 59 and 22 studies focusing on lumbar and cervical spine surgery, respectively, and 6 studies focusing on both. More specifically, the QOD Study Group—a research collaborative between 16 high-enrolling sites—has yielded 24 studies on lumbar grade 1 spondylolisthesis and 13 studies on cervical spondylotic myelopathy, using two focused data sets with high data accuracy and long-term follow-up. The more recent neuro-oncological QOD efforts, i.e., the Tumor QOD and the SRS Quality Registry, have contributed 5 studies, providing insights into the real-world neuro-oncological practice and the role of patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Prospective quality registries are an important resource for observational research, yielding clinical evidence to guide decision-making across neurosurgical subspecialties. Future directions of the QOD efforts include the development of research efforts within the neuro-oncological registries and the American Spine Registry—which has now replaced the inactive spinal modules of the QOD—and the focused research on high-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis and cervical radiculopathy.

Publisher

Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)

Subject

Genetics,Animal Science and Zoology

Reference114 articles.

1. Quality Outcomes Database Spine Care Project 2012–2020: milestones achieved in a collaborative North American outcomes registry to advance value-based spine care and evolution to the American Spine Registry;Asher AL,2020

2. 21st Century Cures Act progresses through US Congress;Jaffe S,2015

3. Chapter 5—The role of clinical registries in health care;Kerezoudis P,2018

4. The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database Qualified Clinical Data Registry: 2015 measure specifications and rationale;Parker SL,2015

5. Quality improvement registries;Gliklich RE,2014

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3