Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36420353›Full record

ArticleJB & JS open access

Evaluating Instability in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Objective Variables Versus Surgeon Impressions.

Mark A MacLean, Chris Bailey, Charles Fisher, Yoga Raja Rampersaud, Ryan Greene, Edward Abraham, Nicholas Dea, Hamilton Hall, Neil Manson, Raymond Andrew Glennie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Laminectomy aloneWorld journal of orthopedics · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Mark A MacLeanDivision of Neurosurgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Chris BaileyDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Charles FisherDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Yoga Raja RampersaudDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ryan GreeneDivision of Neurosurgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Edward AbrahamDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, Dalhousie University, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.
Nicholas DeaDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Hamilton HallDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Neil MansonDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, Dalhousie University, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.
Raymond Andrew GlennieDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Dalhousie University · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The subjective degenerative spondylolisthesis instability classification (S-DSIC) system attempts to define preoperative instability associated with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). The system guides surgical decision-making based on numerous indicators of instability that surgeons subjectively assess and incorporate. A more objective classification is warranted in order to decrease variation among surgeons. In this study, our objectives included (1) proposing an objective version of the DSIC system (O-DSIC) based on the best available clinical and biomechanical data and (2) comparing subjective surgeon perceptions (S-DSIC) with an objective measure (O-DSIC) of instability related to DLS. Methods: In this multicenter cohort study, we prospectively enrolled 408 consecutive adult patients who received surgery for symptomatic DLS. Surgeons prospectively categorized preoperative instability using the existing S-DSIC system. Subsequently, an O-DSIC system was created. Variables selected for inclusion were assigned point values based on previously determined evidence quality. DSIC types were derived by point summation: 0 to 2 points was considered stable, Type I); 3 points, potentially unstable, Type II; and 4 to 5 points, unstable, Type III. Surgeons' subjective perceptions of instability (S-DSIC) were retrospectively compared with O-DSIC types. Results: The O-DSIC system includes 5 variables: presence of facet effusion, disc height preservation (≥6.5 mm), translation (≥4 mm), a kyphotic or neutral disc angle in flexion, and low back pain (≥5 of 10 intensity). Type I (n = 176, 57.0%) and Type II (n = 164, 53.0%) were the most common DSIC types according to the O-DSIC and S-DSIC systems, respectively. Surgeons categorized higher degrees of instability with the S-DSIC than the O-DSIC system in 130 patients (42%) (p < 0.001). The assignment of DSIC types was not influenced by demographic variables with either system. Conclusions: The O-DSIC system facilitates objective assessment of preoperative instability related to DLS. Surgeons assigned higher degrees of instability with the S-DSIC than the O-DSIC system in 42% of cases. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Identifiers

PMID36420353
PMCPMC9678565
OpenAlexW4310335490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.