ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2021
Construct validity and responsiveness of commonly used patient reported outcome instruments in decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preoperative Evaluation of Oswestry Disability Index in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: New Evidence of Time Independence of Variation Up to 1 Year.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of the Severity of Zoster-Associated Pain and Incidence of Postherpetic Neuralgia in Patients with and without Pre-Existing Spinal Disorders at the Same Spinal Nerve Level: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundValidity and responsiveness of Oswestry disability index (ODI), Roland Morris disability questionnaires (RMDQ), Short Form-12 Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS) and Short Form-12 Mental Component Score (SF-12 MCS) in patients undergoing open decompression for lumbar canal stenosis has not been previously reported.
methodsOutcome assessment was prospectively evaluated using the ODI, RMDQ, SF-12 PCS and SF-12 MCS pre-intervention and at average follow-up of three months post-intervention. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the association between change in values of ODI, RMDQ, SF-12 PCS and SF-12 MCS. Distribution based methods (Effect size [ES], standardised response mean [SRM]) and anchor based method (Area under the curve [AUC] of receiver operating curve [ROC]) were used to determine responsiveness. AUC value ≥ 0.70 is considered as adequate level of responsiveness and the outcome instrument with the largest AUC is considered to be the most responsive outcome instrument.
resultsThis study included 77 participants. Responsiveness was assessed at a mean follow-up of 12 weeks postoperatively. There was significant strong correlation between ODI and RMDQ (r = 0.65, p < 0.0001). The ES of ODI, RMDQ, SF-12 PCS and SF-12 MCS were 1.54, 1.48, 1.85 and 0.51 respectively. The SRM of RMDQ, ODI, SF-12 PCS and SF-12 MCS were 1.22, 1.17, 1.0 and 0.47 respectively. AUC of ODI, RMDQ, SF-12 PCS and SF-12 MCS were 0.83-0.88, 0.82 to 0.86, 0.78 to 0.81 and 0.69 to 0.70 respectively.
conclusionIt is recommended to use either ODI or RMDQ as region specific patient reported outcome instrument and SF-12 PCS as a health related quality of life outcome instrument to evaluate outcome after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis.
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.