ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2023
Validating the predictive precision of the dialogue support tool on Danish patient cohorts.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07788872 (MORESP, MOre REalistic Spine Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
MORESP, MOre REalistic Spine Patients: Assessing the Effect of a Predictive Tool ("Dialogue Support") in Relation to Expectations, Post-surgical Outcomes and Surgery Cancellations in Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disorders, as Well as Inter-rater Reliability Between Surgeons.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generalisable prediction models for outcomes after lumbar spinal stenosis surgery: a model development and external validation study.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Swiss national spinal implant registry SIRIS Spine: methods and first results.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- The strategic use of Big Data - A study protocol for a multicenter clinical trial testing if the use of the Swespine Dialogue Support alter outcomes in degenerative spine surgery.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
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
Background: Despite advances in surgical techniques and diagnostics, some patients remain unsatisfied with the result following spine surgery. One way to improve patient satisfaction may be found in better alignment of expectations. Prognostic tools might prove useful in strengthening surgeon-patient communication prior to surgery. The purpose of this study is to assess the predictive capabilities of the Swedish based Dialogue Support (DS) tool for spine surgery on a Danish population. Methods: The study included the diagnoses lumbar disc herniation, lumbar spinal stenosis, and lumbar degenerative disc disease. A total of 5.954 patients were retrieved from the Danish national spine registry (DaneSpine). For each group, 200 random cases with complete preoperative and 1 year follow-up data were selected. Two outcome measures were used: Global assessment of pain (GA pain) and satisfaction with outcome. Predictions were produced by manual entry in the DS application. Goodness of fit tests were used to compare the predicted distribution of proportions with successful outcomes (GA pain) to the actual distribution in the three samples. Binomial tests were performed to evaluate the predicted proportion of satisfied patients. Furthermore, ROC-curves, calibration plots, and metrics were calculated to assess the predictive performance. Results: ROC curves showed comparable AUC values with the values reported by the developing authors of the DS from 0.62 to 0.73 (GA pain) and 0.64 to 0.70 (satisfaction with outcome). The calibration plots, however, revealed a low degree of concordance. For GA pain sensitivity varied from 92.4% to 99.3%, and specificity from 1.5% to 13.4%. For satisfaction, sensitivity varied from 97.1% to 99.2% and specificity from 0.0% to 2.9%. Conclusions: The predictive capabilities of the DS tool could not be generalized to the Danish sample cohorts. Further research on larger samples, provided full access to the underlying algorithms can be obtained, could produce a different result.
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.