Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33203262›Full record

ArticleGlobal spine journal2022

Outcomes of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy From The Perspective of Persons Living With the Condition: Findings of a Semistructured Interview Process With Partnered Internet Survey.

Benjamin M Davies, Colin Munro, Danyal Z Khan, Siobhan M Fitzpatrick, Bryn Hilton, Oliver D Mowforth, Angus G K McNair, Iwan Sadler, Mark R N Kotter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global spine journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Cervical Myelopathy and Social Media: Mixed Methods Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Benjamin M DaviesDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Colin MunroDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7235-3970
Danyal Z KhanDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9213-2550
Siobhan M FitzpatrickDepartment of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Bryn HiltonColchester Hospital University, East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust, Colchester, UK.
Oliver D MowforthDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Angus G K McNairBristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Iwan SadlerMyelopathy Support, Myelopathy.org, Cambridge, UK.
Mark R N KotterDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBEast Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust · GBMyeloma UK · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBWellcome/MRC Cambridge Stem Cell Institute · GB

Funding

Department of Health CS-2017-17-010Department of Health NIHR300696Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designMixed-methods cross-sectional study.

objectivesDegenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition. While classically, assessment and diagnosis has focused on neuromuscular symptoms, many other disabilities have been linked. The aim of this study was to explore the consequences of DCM for those with lived experience, producing a long list to inform the development of a core outcome set for DCM research.

methodsA 2-stage process was used: a focus group session of people with DCM (PwCM) and their supporters (n = 8) discussed the impact of DCM. This was used to develop a preliminary list of consequences, which were then placed into a survey of an online community of DCM sufferers (n = 224). Survey participants were asked to tick the consequences that they had experienced and given the opportunity to submit additional. Additional consequences were reviewed by a group of healthcare professionals and PwCM and included if not already represented. Demographic information including disease severity, age, and sex were captured for sampling comparison.

resultsA total of 52 outcomes were identified from the focus group and nominally divided into 2 categories; symptoms (36 outcomes) and handicaps (18 outcomes), and further evaluated using a survey. All outcomes were recognized by at least 5% of respondents. A further 16 outcomes were added following the survey.

conclusionsA list of DCM consequences has been defined from the perspective of PwCM. This will now be evaluated as part of AO Spine RECODE-DCM, an international multistakeholder collaboration to establish a core outcome set for research.

Indexed as

cervical myelopathyconsensuscore outcomes setpatient perspectivesqualitativespondylosisthematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID33203262
PMCPMC9121154
OpenAlexW3098193485

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.