ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Loss to follow-up after lumbar decompressive surgery: effect of collection method and perioperative factors on patient-reported outcome measures.
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, 2026. 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.
- The impact of overall lumbar disc degeneration burden on disability outcomes following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis due to osteoarthritis.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2026Article
- The first week matters: App-based PROM trajectories and follow-up retention after endoscopic lumbar surgery.Brain & spine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo identify collection methods and perioperative factors linked to 12-month patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) response rate and evaluate the effect of loss to follow-up on PROM results.
methodsThe study included 2588 elective lumbar decompressive surgery without spinal fusion during 2008-2023. The primary PROM was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The independent effect of PROM collection methods and perioperative factors on 12-month ODI response was examined. The effect of loss to follow-up on 12-month PROM responder results was evaluated with modelled 12-month PROM and with observed 3-month PROM in a group with last ODI response at 3-months. The response rate to 6-month electronic-only collection was evaluated in patients who advocated to also receive electronic questionnaires.
resultsProportionally, 70.8% (1832/2588) were 12-month ODI responders, 19.4% (501/2588) provided a last ODI response at 3-months, and 9.9% (255/2588) were ODI non-responders. The PROM collection method linked to the highest 12-month ODI response rate was two attempts each by electronic and postal questionnaire. Important perioperative factors for lower 12-month ODI response were younger age, smoker, ASA grade, physical comorbidities, male, and anxiety/depression. Twelve-month responder PROM results were unchanged (≤ 1% of metric) by the addition of missing values from modelled PROM or last ODI response at 3-months. The 6-month ODI response rate to electronic-only questionnaire was 48% (467/969).
conclusionCombined electronic and postal PROM collection achieved a 78% response rate. Populations at risk of underrepresentation in spinal register 12-month results were identified. Twelve-month PROM results are not significantly affected by 29% missing data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40884548What 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.