ArticleCureus2025
Minimal Clinically Important Difference in the Six-Minute Walking Distance 12 Months After Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimal clinically important difference of the 6-Minute walk test and daily step count at 3 months following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.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 · 2025Article
- Responsiveness of the mini-balance evaluation systems test, dynamic gait index, Berg balance scale, and performance-oriented mobility assessment in parkinson's disease.Scientific reports · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designThis was a prospective single-center study. PURPOSE: This study aimed to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the six-minute walk distance (6MWD) postoperatively. Overview of the literature: The 6MWD and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) have recently been used to evaluate the intermittent claudication of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, there is no report concerning the MCID of postoperative changes of 6MWD in patients with LSS.
methodsThis prospective study included patients aged 60 or older who underwent surgery for LSS with intermittent claudication as the primary symptom at a single institution from 2022 to 2024. The 6MWD and the ZCQ were assessed preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively. The MCID was evaluated using an anchor-based approach using ZCQ. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to determine the correlation between the pre-and postoperative changes in 6MWD and ZCQ. The MCID was calculated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Calculated MCID and area under the curve (AUC) were evaluated by internal validation using the bootstrap method. A significance level of <0.05 was used, and bootstrap validation was performed with a 95% confidence interval.
resultsOne hundred and five patients were included in the study. The average preoperative and postoperative 6MWD were 282 meters and 385 meters, respectively (p<0.01). The ZCQ significantly improved from 2.64 to 1.73 postoperatively (p<0.01). Postoperative 6MWD and ZCQ correlated substantially with change (r=-0.58, p<0.01). In the anchor-based approach, 67 patients (63%) responded to the anchor ZCQ with an MCID of 80.0 m. This MCID had a sensitivity of 92.1%, a specificity of 76.1%, and an AUC of 90.6%, which was excellent. Internal validation showed moderate to excellent reliability with 95% confidence intervals for MCID and AUC ranging from 40 m to 100 m and 86% to 95%, respectively.
conclusionsIn this study, the MCID of postoperative changes of the 6MWD in patients with LSS was 80 m. This value helps evaluate the surgical results of patients with LSS.
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.