ArticleAsian spine journal2023
Development of a Novel Retrospective Instrument to Gauge the General Well-Being Index and Lumbar-Specific Disability Index Post-intervention in Lumbar Degenerative Disease.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2023. 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.
- Evaluation of the Fusion Rate and Safety ofJournal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designValidation of a novel retrospective comparative questionnaire to obtain post-intervention outcome data in patients with lumbar degenerative spinal disease. PURPOSE: Acquiring prospective outcome data for spinal intervention is not frequently feasible in resource-depleted units in certain developing countries. Therefore, a novel retrospective instrument is being validated for clinical use, which can act as a standard method to describe outcomes when data are retrospectively collected. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: The standard method of collecting outcome data after a spinal intervention has been prospective, including the Oswestry Disability Index, Roland-Morris Questionnaire, and Short Form-36. The process of content validation and reliability of the novel retrospective spinal questionnaires is highlighted.
methodsQuestionnaire items were created based on a literature review, followed by a process of content validation by experts and modification based on expert opinions to achieve an acceptable content validity index (CVI, 0.70-1.00). To calculate factor loadings for each question, a pilot test was subsequently conducted from a pool of patients who underwent lumbar spine surgeries for degenerative spine diseases.
resultsAll items achieved a CVI of >0.85 for both relevancy and clarity and were successfully validated after appropriate corrections were made before the second validation phase. Except for Q9 and Q10, which showed low-loading factors in the pooled sample, the remainder of the items had acceptable loading factors across different subgroups, indicating that the passage of time did not affect the results of the exploratory factor analysis.
conclusionsThe retrospective questionnaire that encompasses the general well-being and lumbar-specific symptoms is a valid and reliable instrument to provide an impression of the outcome after intervention in a patient with a degenerative lumbar spinal disease. A summative score will indicate the overall outcome.
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.