Trial reportWiener klinische Wochenschrift2013
Provocative discography screening improves surgical outcome.
Trial report in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of intradiscal steroid injection for spinal stenosis: a retrospective cohort study in South Korea.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Single-Level Total Disc Replacement: Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Minimally invasive transaxial lumbosacral interbody fusion: a ten year single-centre experience.International orthopaedics · 2017Article
- Operative Management of Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease.Asian spine journal · 2016Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of patients operated on, with or without discography prior to operation.
methodsThe study was designed as a randomized controlled trial, using power analysis with McNemar's test on two correlated proportions. The study comprised of 310 patients divided into trial (207) and control (103) groups. Inclusion criteria were low back pain resistant to nonsurgical treatment for more than 6 months and conventional radiological findings showing degenerative changes without a clear generator of pain. Exclusion criteria were red flags (tumor, trauma, and infection). After standard radiological diagnostic imaging (X-ray, CT, and MR), patients filled in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36, Zung, and MSP questionnaires. Depending on their radiological findings, patients were included and randomly placed in the trial or control group. At the 1-year follow-up examination, patients filled in the ODI, SF-36, and Likert scale questionnaires.
resultsThe difference between preoperative and postoperative ODI in the control group degenerative disc disease (DDD) subgroup was 22.07 %. The difference between preoperative and postoperative ODI in the trial group DDD subgroup was 35.04 %. Differences between preoperative and postoperative ODI in the control group other indications subgroup was 26.13 %. Differences between preoperative and postoperative ODI in the trial group other indications subgroup was 28.42 %.
conclusionsDDD treated surgically without discography did not reach the clinically significant improvement of 15 ODI points for the patients treated with fusion. Provocative discography screening with psychological testing in the trial group made improvement following fusion clinically significant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.