ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2020
ISSLS prize in clinical science 2020: the reliability and interpretability of score change in lumbar spine research.
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, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- InertialMov: Machine Learning Test Based on Inertial Sensors to Predict Mobility Impairment in Low Back Pain Patients.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- How reliable are the Core Outcome Measures Index and Global Treatment Outcome as measures of treatment success after surgery for central lumbar spinal canal stenosis?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 · 2025Article
- Can 3-month models or observed 3- or 6-month patient-reported outcome measures accurately predict 12-month disability and pain after lumbar decompressive surgery?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: evaluation of surgically treated patients from the NORDSTEN study.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 · 2024Article
- The strategic use of Big Data - A study protocol for a multicenter clinical trial testing if the use of the Swespine Dialogue Support alter outcomes in degenerative spine surgery.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy vs Standard Discectomy: A Noninferiority Study on Clinically Relevant Changes.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Patients With Mild Leg Pain Levels Is Associated With Unsatisfactory Outcome.Global spine journal · 2021Article
- Article
- Reoperations after decompression with or without fusion for L4-5 spinal stenosis with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis: a study of 6,532 patients in Swespine, the national Swedish spine register.Acta orthopaedica · 2021Article
- Preoperative patient activation is predictive of improvements in patient-reported outcomes following minimally invasive lumbar decompression.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 · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA statistically significant score change of a PROM (Patient-Reported Outcome Measure) can be questioned if it does not exceed the clinically Minimal Important Change (MIC) or the SDC (Smallest Detectable Change) of the particular measure. The aim of the study was to define the SDC of three common PROMs in degenerative lumbar spine surgery: Numeric Rating Scale (NRS
methodsReliability analyses were performed on a test-retest population of 182 symptomatically stable patients, with similar characteristics as the Swespine registry population, who underwent surgery for degenerative lumbar spine conditions 2017-2018. The MIC values were based on the entire registry (n = 98,732) using the ROC curve method. The ICC for absolute agreement was calculated in a two-way random-effects single measures model. For categorical variables, weighted kappa and exact agreement were computed.
resultsFor the NRS, the SDC exceeded the MIC (NRS
conclusionFor the tested PROM scores, the changes must be considerable in order to distinguish a true change from random error in degenerative lumbar spine surgery research. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
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.