ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
Characteristics and outcomes of patients who did not respond to a national spine surgery registry.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Features of Older Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Who Discontinued Postoperative Follow-Up.Spine surgery and related research · 2026Article
- Article
- Loss to follow-up after lumbar decompressive surgery: effect of collection method and perioperative factors on patient-reported outcome measures.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 · 2026Article
- Development of machine learning models for predicting patient-perceived benefit following lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis surgery.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 · 2026Article
- Surgeon Skill Level, Experience, and Impact on Patient Outcomes: Rethinking Research Paradigms in Spine Surgery.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Insights on High-Value Procedures From the ISASS 4-Part Webinar Series on Current and Emerging Techniques in Endoscopic Spine Surgery Based on Surgeon Experience.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: evaluation of surgically treated patients from the NORDSTEN study.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
- Postoperative complications after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, assessment using two different data sources.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Long-term comparison of anterior (ALIF) versus transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion: a propensity score-matched register-based study.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
- Machine Learning Models for Predicting Disability and Pain Following Lumbar Disc Herniation Surgery.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- The Norwegian registry for spine surgery (NORspine): cohort profile.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 · 2023Article
- Prospects of returning to work after lumbar spine surgery for patients considering disability pension: a nationwide study based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLoss to follow-up may bias outcome assessments in medical registries. This cohort study aimed to analyze and compare patients who failed to respond with those that responded to the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine).
methodsWe analyzed a cohort of 474 consecutive patients operated for lumbar spinal stenosis at four public hospitals in Norway during a two-year period. These patients reported sociodemographic data, preoperative symptoms, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numerical rating scales (NRS) for back and leg pain to NORspine at baseline and 12 months postoperatively. We contacted all patients who did not respond to NORspine after 12 months. Those who responded were termed responsive non-respondents and compared to 12 months respondents.
resultsOne hundred forty (30%) did not respond to NORspine 12 months after surgery and 123 were available for additional follow-up. Sixty-four of the 123 non-respondents (52%) responded to a cross-sectional survey done at a median of 50 (36-64) months after surgery. At baseline, non-respondents were younger 63 (SD 11.7) vs. 68 (SD 9.9) years (mean difference (95% CI) 4.7 years (2.6 to 6.7); p = < 0.001) and more frequently smokers 41 (30%) vs. 70 (21%) RR (95%CI) = 1.40 (1.01 to 1.95); p = 0.044. There were no other relevant differences in other sociodemographic variables or preoperative symptoms. We found no differences in the effect of surgery on non-respondents vs. respondents (ODI (SD) = 28.2 (19.9) vs. 25.2 (18.9), MD (95%CI) = 3.0 ( -2.1 to 8.1); p = 0.250).
conclusionWe found that 30% of patients did not respond to NORspine at 12 months after spine surgery. Non-respondents were somewhat younger and smoked more frequently than respondents; however, there were no differences in patient-reported outcome measures. Our findings suggest that attrition bias in NORspine was random and due to non-modifiable factors.
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.