ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2024
Quantifying value loss due to presenteeism and absenteeism in workers' compensation spinal patients.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent studies suggest that better outcomes in work productivity following spine surgery eventually offset the higher cost of treatment. By analyzing preoperative and postoperative changes in work productivity, studies can determine if surgery is cost-effective and give patients valuable information about treatment. Prior studies reviewing outcomes in work performance after spine surgery have largely excluded patients on workers' compensation from the overall cost analysis. Methods: A retrospective review of 92 eligible patients was conducted. Evaluation of the EHR identified presenteeism and absenteeism from designated work restrictions. Statistical analyses were conducted using JMP Pro 17. Results: About 84 (83%) spinal surgery cases were able to return to work, 60 (59%) were able to return to work with no restrictions, 26 (26%) received permanent work restrictions, and 12 (12%) were still undergoing treatment. 86 (85%) experienced presenteeism and 99 (98%) experienced absenteeism. Of the cases that were able to return to work without permanent work restrictions, the mean presenteeism length postoperatively was 287.4 days (median 191 days) and the mean absenteeism length postoperatively was 232.5 days (median 142 days). 72 patients were identified as having sedentary or nonsedentary labor. After excluding outliers, the average return-to-work length was 988.62 days for patients with sedentary employment types and 952.15 days for patients with nonsedentary employment types (p=.116). Conclusion: Following spinal surgery, our worker's compensation patient population's return-to-work rate was at an average of 232.5 days (median of 142 days) for 83% of patients included in this study. This exhibited worse outcomes than a previous study's measurement excluding worker's compensation patients. Presenteeism length within our population contributed more to decreased work productivity postoperatively than absenteeism length. Our results found no significant difference in return-to-work length between patients with sedentary and nonsedentary employment types.
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.