ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Advantages to interspace-level analyses over person-level analyses when studying relationships between lumbar spinal degeneration findings : a cross-sectional study.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To examine associations between lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration (LDD) and type II Modic changes (MC) when retaining information at each interspace ("interspace-level analysis"), as compared to aggregating information across interspaces as is typically done in spine research ("person-level analysis") . The study compared results from (1) interspace-level analyses assuming a common relationship across interspaces (the "interspace-level, common-relationship" approach), (2) interspace-level analyses allowing for interspace-specific associations (an "interspace-level, interspace-specific" approach), and (3) a conventional person-level analytic approach. Methods: Adults in primary care (n=147) received lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and neuroradiologist-evaluated assessments of prevalent disc height narrowing (DHN), type II MC, and other LDD parameters. Analyses examined associations between DHN and type II MC in interspace-level, common-relationship analyses, interspace-level, interspace-specific analyses, and conventional person-level analyses. Results: Cross-sectional, interspace-level, common-relationship analyses found large-magnitude DHN-type II MC associations (adjusted OR [aOR]=6.5, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 3.3-13; p<0.001). The magnitude of this association was larger and more precise than that yielded by person-level analyses (aOR=2.9 [95% CI 1.2-7]), and substantially more precise than interspace-level, interspace-specific analyses which allowed the association between DHN and type II MC to vary across levels. Across exploratory analyses of disc signal intensity and other MC types, interspace-level, common-relationship analyses produced larger-magnitude and more precise associations than person-level analyses in most situations, and were more precise than interspace-level, interspace-specific analyses. Conclusions: Interspace-level analytic approaches offer some advantages to person-level analyses that may be useful in understanding relationships between spinal degeneration findings.
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.