ArticleGlobal spine journal2024
A Clinically Applicable Predictive Score in Lumbar Disc Disease for Formulating a Surgical Plan.
Article in Global spine journal, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Impact of surgeon's dominant hand-side consistency with surgical approach on operational efficiency of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a prospective cohort study].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
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
STUDY
designCase control study.
objectiveMicro-lumbar discectomy or Interbody fusion procedure are work-horse surgical procedures in management of lumbar disc disease. Spine surgeon in their early years of practice gets confused in choosing ideal surgical plan when dealing with a complex scenario. A clinical score is needed to guide spine surgeons in choosing an optimal surgical plan. MATERIALS AND
methodsStudy was done with research grant approval from AO Spine. A predictive score was formulated as per hypothesis following a pilot study. Two fellowship trained spine surgeons-one using the score (Group A) and other not using score (Group B-control) treated 40 patients included in their respective group. All patients were analysed preoperatively, post-surgery at 12 months follow-up with Visual analog scale score for back pain, leg pain, Oswestry disability index score, SF-36 score. Change in parameters at 12 months follow-up were analysed statistically.
resultsSuccess rate of Group A-surgeon was higher than Group B-surgeon .15% of Group B patients had poor surgical outcome at follow-up. Statistically significant improvement in Group A patients were seen in all 3 evaluated parameters when compared to Group B patients at 12 months of follow-up (
conclusionThe proposed predictive score comprising all risk factors, can be used by spine surgeons when they are confronted with difficult scenario in decision-making. Accuracy, reliability and validity of the score needs to be evaluated in a larger scale. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Ⅲ.
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.