Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 515

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Spinal-Fusion Surgery — The Case for Restraint

Deyo, Richard A., Nachemson, Alf, Mirza, Sohail K.·2004·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

The use of spinal-fusion surgery is increasing rapidly in the United States. Most of these expensive, complex procedures are now being done for back pain and degenerative disease. Spinal fusions require long operations and are associated with an increase in the rate of complications, particularly in older patients. The benefits of surgery may be only modest, and pain relief is affected by many factors besides the anatomy. The authors of this article argue for restraint in the use of spinal-fusion surgery and for controlled trials to define more clearly the associated benefits and the indications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmsb031771

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 515

Metadata

Authors
Deyo, R. A., Nachemson, A., & Mirza, S. K.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2004-02-12
Volume
350
Issue
7
Pages
722-726
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1984899992
Cited by
515
References
0
FWCI
20.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Spinal-Fusion Surgery — The Case for Restraint. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmsb031771
The paper
Deyo, R. A., Nachemson, A., & Mirza, S. K. (2004). Spinal-Fusion Surgery — The Case for Restraint. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsb031771

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.