ArticleThe patient2025
Patients and Spine Surgeons' Perspectives regarding Decision-Making and Outcomes in Lumbar Surgery: An Exploratory, Qualitative Study.
Article in The patient, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of decision aids on decisional conflict and treatment or disease knowledge among women diagnosed with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Review
- What does the US public think of scoliosis: a comprehensive crowd-sourced study of perceptions about adult spinal deformity.Spine deformity · 2026Article
- Which spine surgery techniques are most appealing to the public? A survey examining public perception of spine surgery techniques and factors associated with procedure preference.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecision-making in lumbar surgery for degenerative conditions is influenced by various factors, including patient expectations and empowerment. The role of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in guiding these decisions is underexplored. This study aims to understand the perspectives of patients and spine surgeons in decision-making for lumbar surgery and explore their perspectives on the relevance and influence of pre- and post-surgery PROs.
methodsAn exploratory qualitative study was conducted between February 2022 and November 2023. A total of 15 patients with degenerative lumbar conditions and 9 spine surgeons from 5 tertiary public hospitals in Singapore were recruited. Data were analyzed using a framework analysis approach, ensuring validity through member checking, reflexive journals, and data source triangulation.
resultsThree overarching categories emerged: "expectations and outcomes," "decision empowerment," and "surgical experiences." There is a shift toward shared decision-making, highlighting the importance of patient-centric approaches. Surgical decisions are primarily influenced by PROs, particularly health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain relief. Patients prioritize pain relief and improvements in daily functioning, while surgeons also emphasize avoiding postoperative complications. Decision support tools, including PRO data, are essential but need better accessibility and integration within clinical settings. Positive surgical experiences are driven by clear communication, trust with surgeons, swift recovery, and no regrets post-surgery.
conclusionsOur study emphasizes the importance of patient-centered approaches in lumbar surgery decision-making, particularly regarding pre- and post-surgery PROs. Implementing these approaches may enhance patient satisfaction and surgical outcomes, urging the surgical community to prioritize informed, empathetic decision-making to improve healthcare quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39589657What 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.