ArticleBrain & spine2025
Outcome measurements in patients with a lumbar disc herniation - a scoping review.
Article in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patient-reported outcome measures in lumbar disc herniation: a scoping review.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 · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Outcome measurement is a cornerstone of modern medicine. A range of tools are commonly used for outcome assessment in lumbar disc herniation (LDH) treatment. Research question: What are the outcome measurement tools (OMTs) that have been used in the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for LDH for the last 25 years? Material and methods: The search covered only RCT of adult patients with LDH for the period January 01, 2000-December 31, 2024. Two authors reviewed independently the RCTs' relevance to the topic of our scoping review. The reviewed and selected RCTs were analyzed, and relevant data was extracted, standardized and classified. Results: We identified 168 RCTs and 29 outcome measurement tools covering 6 main domains: pain measurement - 6 tools, disability - 4 tools, quality of life - 2 tools, clinical parameters - 9 tools, psychological facet - 3 tools and self-perceived recovery - 5 tools. The number of tools used per RCT was most frequently 3 (26.2 %) or 4 (21.4 %). Discussion and conclusion: Measuring outcome in patients with LDH is a complex and multidimensional task. The RCTs involving surgical treatment usually applied tools from 4 domains: pain, disability, clinical parameters and QOL. The most frequently used tools for the different domains were respectively: VAS, ODI, a mixture of clinical parameters and SF-36/12. A new group of outcome measuring tools based on computer adapted tests, wearable devices and digital outcome measures are on the horizon trying to impose new standards but their application needs further investigation.
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.