ArticlePloS one2022
Clinical improvement after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy; A comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures during 12-month follow-up.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification, validation, and prediction of longitudinal recovery phenotypes in degenerative cervical myelopathy: analysis of prospective cohorts and a randomised controlled trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Anterior versus posterior decompression and fusion for multilevel cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2026Review
- Patient-reported outcomes following anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion versus laminectomy for degenerative cervical myelopathy: analyses of a national multicenter dataset.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Beyond raw comparisons: Adjusted analysis reveals only minor inter-hospital differences in ACDF outcomes in Norway.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Do patients with Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy recover as quickly and as well after surgery as patients suffering from other degenerative disorders of the cervical spine?Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Comparison of the patient-derived modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale and the European myelopathy score.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
- Article
- Return to work after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a nationwide registry-based observational study.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Observational
- Neurological recovery rate and minimal clinically important difference as metrics for assessing outcomes of decompressive surgery in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy.Acta neurochirurgica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectAlthough many patients report clinical improvement after surgery due to degenerative cervical myelopathy, the aim of intervention is to stop progression of spinal cord dysfunction. We wanted to provide estimates and assess achievement rates of Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) at 3- and 12-month follow-up for Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale for arm pain (NRS-AP) and neck pain (NRS-NP), Euro-Qol (EQ-5D-3L), and European Myelopathy Score (EMS).
methods614 degenerative cervical myelopathy patients undergoing surgery responded to Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) prior to, 3 and 12 months after surgery. External criterion was the Global Perceived Effect Scale (1-7), defining MCID as "slightly better", "much better" and "completely recovered". MCID estimates with highest sensitivity and specificity were calculated by Receiver Operating Curves for change and percentage change scores in the whole sample and in anterior and posterior procedural groups.
resultsThe NDI and NRS-NP percentage change scores were the most accurate PROMs with a MCID of 16%. The change score for NDI and percentage change scores for NDI, NRS-AP and NRS-NP were slightly higher in the anterior procedure group compared to the posterior procedure group, while remaining PROM estimates were similar across procedure type. The MCID achievement rates at 12-month follow-up ranged from 51% in EMS to 62% in NRS-NP.
conclusionThe NDI and NRS-NP percentage change scores were the most accurate PROMs to measure clinical improvement after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. We recommend using different cut-off estimates for anterior and posterior approach procedures. A MCID achievement rate of 60% or less must be interpreted in the perspective that the main goal of surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy is to prevent worsening of the condition.
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.