Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39680122›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025

Estimating the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the five-repetition sit-to-stand test in patients with lumbar disc herniation.

Anita M Klukowska, Manon G Dol, W Peter Vandertop, Marc L Schröder, Victor E Staartjes

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The reliability and validity of the 30-second chair sit-to-stand test and the five-repetition sit-to-stand test in individuals following lumbar spinal 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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anita M KlukowskaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Bergman Clinics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Manon G DolDepartment of Neurosurgery, Bergman Clinics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
W Peter VandertopAmsterdam UMC, Neurosurgery, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marc L SchröderDepartment of Neurosurgery, Bergman Clinics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Victor E StaartjesMachine Intelligence in Clinical Neuroscience and Microsurgical Neuroanatomy (MICN) Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. victoregon.staartjes@usz.ch.ORCID 0000-0003-1039-2098

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe impact of surgical interventions on lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is often assessed using objective functional impairment (OFI) tests like the five-repetition sit-to-stand (5R-STS) test. This study calculates the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for 5R-STS improvement in patients with LDH one year after surgery.

methodsAdult patients with LDH scheduled for surgery were prospectively recruited from a Dutch short-stay spinal clinic. The 5R-STS time, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Numeric Rating Scale for back and leg pain, EQ-5D-3L health-related quality of life questionnaire and EQ5D-VAS were recorded preoperatively, at 6-weeks and 1-year post-operatively. The MCID was calculated using anchor-based methods (within-patient change; between-patient change; and receiver-operating characteristic approaches) and distribution-based methods (0.5 standard deviation (SD); effect size; standard error of measurement; standardized response mean; and 95% minimum detectable change (MDC)). The final MCID value was based on the "gold standard": an averaging of the anchor-based methods using ODI and RMDQ as the closest available anchors.

resultsWe prospectively recruited 134 patients. One-year follow-up was completed by 103 (76.8%) of patients. The MCID values derived using different methods varied from 0.7 to 5.1 s (s). The final, averaged, anchor-based MCID for improvement was 3.6 s. Within distribution-based methods, 95% MDC and 0.5SD approach, yielded an MCID of 3.0 and 3.8 s, respectively, aligning closely with the overall anchor-derived MCID for 5R-STS.

conclusionIn a patient with LDH, an improvement in 5R-STS performance of at least 3.6 s can be regarded as a clinically relevant improvement.

Indexed as

Intervertebral Disc DisplacementLumbar VertebraeMinimal Clinically Important DifferenceAdultAgedDisability EvaluationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementProspective StudiesQuality of LifeFunctional impairmentLumbar disc herniationMinimum clinically important differenceObjective testSit to stand

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.