Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27551964›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

The Qualification of Outcome after Cervical Spine Surgery by Patients Compared to the Neck Disability Index.

Roland Donk, Andre Verbeek, Wim Verhagen, Hans Groenewoud, Allard Hosman, Ronald Bartels

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Substantial clinical benefit for Neck Disability Index revisited: establishing the goal for treatment?European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures in Spine Surgery.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Roland DonkDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Via Sana Clinics, Hoogveldseweg 1, 5451 AA, Mill, the Netherlands.
Andre VerbeekDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud university medical center, Geert Groote Plein-zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Wim VerhagenDepartment of Neurology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Weg door Jonkerbos 100, 6532 SZ, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Hans GroenewoudDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud university medical center, Geert Groote Plein-zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Allard HosmanDepartment for Orthopedic Surgery, Radboud university medical center, Geert Groote Plein-zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Ronald BartelsDepartment of Neurosurgery, Radboud university medical center, Geert Groote Plein-zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8638-4660

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe Neck Disability Index (NDI) is a patient self-assessed outcome measurement tool to assess disability, and that is frequently used to evaluate the effects of the treatment of neck-related problems. In individualized medicine it is mandatory that patients can interpret data in order to choose a treatment. A change of NDI or an absolute NDI is generally meaningless to a patient. Therefore, a correlation between the qualification of the clinical situation rated by the patient and the NDI score was evaluated.

methodsPatients who completed an NDI after anterior surgery because of symptomatic single level degenerative cervical disc disease were asked one month after completion of the NDI to qualify their clinical situation of a 5-item Likert scale varying from excellent to bad. Since a clear distinction between the categories was not possible based on the total NDI score, a ROC-curve was built, and the AUC computed in order to estimate best dichotomization in qualification of the clinical situation. The best corresponding cut-off point for the NDI total score was found by studying sensitivity and specificity for all possible cut-off points.

results102 patients were included. The highest AUC was obtained by dichotomizing the qualification into a group with good outcome and less-good outcome. The highest sensitivity and specificity for the dichotomized qualification as good outcome corresponded to a NDI ≤ 7. Sensitivity was 81.08% and specificity was 78.57%.

conclusionThis is the first study that correlated the qualification of the situation by the patients themselves and NDI. An NDI ≤ 7 corresponded to a good outcome according to the patients. This is valuable information to inform patients in their decision for any treatment.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationCervical VertebraeFemaleHumansMalePain MeasurementPatient Outcome AssessmentPostoperative PeriodPreoperative PeriodQuality of LifeROC CurveSeverity of Illness IndexSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID27551964
PMCPMC4995029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.