Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30877386›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2019

Minimum clinically important difference in outcome scores among patients undergoing cervical laminoplasty.

So Kato, Yasushi Oshima, Yoshitaka Matsubayashi, Yuki Taniguchi, Sakae Tanaka, Katsushi Takeshita

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A systematic review of minimum important changes for generic multi-attribute utility instruments and recommendations for their estimation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

So KatoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasushi OshimaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yoshitaka MatsubayashiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yuki TaniguchiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Sakae TanakaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Katsushi TakeshitaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Jichi Medical University, 3311-1, Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, 3290498, Japan. dtstake@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8470-4555

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMinimum clinically important difference (MCID) represents the smallest change in an outcome measure recognized as clinically meaningful to a patient and is one of the most important psychometric parameters for assessing the postoperative results of spinal surgery. The purpose of the present study was to elucidate MCIDs for four common outcome measures used for degenerative cervical myelopathy in the context of patients undergoing laminoplasty.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of cervical laminoplasties in a single academic institution. Pre- and postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and EuroQOL (EQ-5D) scores were obtained. Patients were also asked to answer the anchor question regarding satisfaction with treatment, and the anchor-based method was used to determine cut-off values for MCIDs.

resultsA total of 101 patients were included in the analysis. All outcome scores showed significant improvement postoperatively, with the exception of JOACMEQ bladder function score and SF-36 mental component summary score. Most patients (66%) were at least "somewhat satisfied" with treatment results. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed MCIDs of 2.5 for JOACEMQ cervical spine function, 13.0 for upper extremity function, 9.35 for lower extremity function, 9.5 for QOL, 3.9 for SF-36 physical component summary score, 4.2 for NDI, and 0.0485 for EQ-5D.

conclusionThe MCIDs of four outcome measures were determined for patients undergoing cervical laminoplasty. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Indexed as

LaminoplastyMinimal Clinically Important DifferencePatient Outcome AssessmentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCervical VertebraeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSpinal Cord DiseasesCervical laminoplastyEuroQOLJapanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation QuestionnaireMinimum clinically important differenceNeck Disability IndexShort Form-36

Identifiers

PMID30877386

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.