Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28803345›Full record

Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2018

Substantial clinical benefit for Neck Disability Index revisited: establishing the goal for treatment?

Roland D Donk, Andre L M Verbeek, Wim I M Verhagen, Hans Groenewoud, Allard T F Hosman, Ronald H M A Bartels

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in 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. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Values derived from patient reported outcomes in spine surgery: a systematic review of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state.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 · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Roland D DonkDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Via Sana Clinics, Hoogveldseweg 1, 5451 AA, Mill, The Netherlands.
Andre L M VerbeekDepartment of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Groote Plein-zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Wim I M VerhagenDepartment of Neurology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Weg door Jonkerbos 100, 6532 SZ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Hans GroenewoudDepartment of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Groote Plein-zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Allard T F HosmanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Groote Plein-zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ronald H M A BartelsDepartment of Neurosurgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Groote Plein-zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. ronald.bartels@radboudumc.nl.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLCanisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis · NLDe Hoogstraat Revalidatie · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIt is difficult for clinicians to inform patients about the success rate of a treatment as a cervical anterior discectomy procedure. Ideally, a proportion of good outcome as rated by patients is known. Patient-reported outcome measurements are helpful. The purpose is to relate the difference in Neck Disability Index (NDI) after a cervical anterior discectomy procedure for single level cervical degenerative disc disease with the patients' rating of their actual clinical situation after long-term follow-up to define the substantial clinical benefit (SCB).

methodsAfter completion of the NDI, patients who were surgically treated for cervical single level degenerative disease were asked to complete a five-item Likert scale to rate their clinical situation. After dichotomisation of the outcome in good versus less than good, a cut-off value was defined by determining the value of the difference of NDI with the highest specificity and sensitivity. Funding was not obtained.

resultsSCB for NDI after surgery for cervical single level degenerative disease should be set at ten with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 for sensitivity as well specificity.

conclusionsThe goal for each treatment is a good outcome. While comparing treatments for cervical degenerative disc disease only those with an SCB of ten will be relevant for the patient, as patients who achieved this difference in NDI rated their actual situation at long-term follow-up as good.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationAdultArea Under CurveCervical VertebraeDiskectomyDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGoalsHumansIntervertebral DiscIntervertebral Disc DegenerationMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySpinal FusionAnterior cervical discectomyNDIOutcomePROMSCBSubstantial clinical benefit

Identifiers

PMID28803345
OpenAlexW2742464975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.