ArticlePain reports2021
Momentary pain assessments reveal benefits of endoscopic discectomy: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Pain reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Morphometric similarity networks discriminate patients with lumbar disc herniation from healthy controls and predict pain intensity.Frontiers in network physiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common back disorder that evokes back and/or leg pain. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) is a minimally invasive surgery for patients with LDH. However, there is little evidence of effectiveness of PELD compared with conservative treatments.
objectiveThe goal of this study was to quantify the efficacy of PELD compared with conservative treatments.
methodsHere, we conducted a prospective observational cohort study using momentary pain assessments via a smartphone app during 3 months following surgery. The trajectories of daily ecological momentary pain assessments were fitted with an exponential model containing two parameters: a pain reduction coefficient and the percentage of persistent pain. To control for selection bias between PELD and Conservative groups (N = 167 and 34), we used inverse probability (IP) of treatment weighting for statistical comparisons.
resultsCompared with conservative treatments, both momentary pain rating and the exponential model showed statistically significant pain recovery following PELD (p < 0.001). In addition, PELD had a faster pain recovery rate (hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.75 (1.40, 2.20), p < 0.001), greater overall pain recovery rate (odds ratio (95%CI): 2.35 (2.01, 5.26), p < 0.001), faster pain reduction (t
conclusionsIn conclusion, momentary pain rating and the model fitting revealed that PELD provided rapid pain recovery that lasted for at least three months. Greater pain intensity and lower anxiety before the surgery were predictors of faster pain reduction in the recovery subgroup following PELD. Daily momentary pain rating on a smartphone may be able to provide more informative data to evaluate effect of an intervention than pain assessment on hospital visits.
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.