Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 11, pp 2889–2890 | Cite as

Comments to the Letter to the Editor of S. Shahsavari et al. concerning “Predicting medical complications in spine surgery: evaluation of a novel online risk calculator” by M. F. Kasparek et al. (Eur Spine J: doi:10.1007/s00586-018-5707-9) and the reply to the Letter to the Editor of S. Shahsavari et al. concerning “Predicting medical complications in spine surgery: evaluation of a novel online risk calculator” by M. F. Kasparek et al. (Eur Spine J: doi:10.1007/s00586-018-5707-9)

  • Kimberley L. Edwards
Reviewer’s Comment

The authors to this Letter to the Editor make three key points:

Firstly, they query whether a Pearson Chi-squared test or unpaired t test/Mann–Whitney U test should be used. They argue the latter because they are for binary data, which is true. However, the authors to the article (Kasparek et al.) are also correct in stating the circumstances when their Chi-squared test can be used. I agree with the authors to the paper; that is, Chi-squared was an acceptable test. That said, ‘calibration’ of prognostic models is discussed later.

Secondly, the authors to the letter ask about the criterion used to determine the (presumably predicted) risk level of the patients. This is clearly described in the original paper and the categories given “< 15; 15–30; > 30.”

“The risk of medical complications for each patient according to his/her comorbidity profile and planned surgical invasiveness was estimated online using the freely available risk calculator (SpineSage™) [8]. It provides likelihood...

Notes

Compliance with etical standards

Conflict of interst

The author has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Metz CE (1978) Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 8(4):283–298.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-2998(78)80014-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bekelis K, Desai A, Bakhoum SF, Missios S (2014) A predictive model of complications after spine surgery: the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) 2005–2010. Spine J 14:1247–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee MJ, Cizik AM, Hamilton D, Chapman JR (2013) Predicting medical complications after spine surgery: a validated model using a prospective surgical registry. Spine J 14(2):291–299.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.043 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med 162:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopaedics, Trauma and Sports Medicine, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations