ArticleScientific reports2026
External validity and responsiveness of lumbar spinal stenosis-specific symptom and QOL scales: A multicenter prospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) impairs function and quality of life, and two LSS-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures—the LSS Symptom and LSS QOL scales—have been developed; however, their external validity and responsiveness across conservative and surgical pathways have not been established. This prospective multicenter validation study enrolled 243 patients who completed both scales with the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and Short Form-36 at baseline. Follow-up was conducted at 6 ± 1 months after conservative care or 3 months after surgery and included satisfaction ratings. External validity was examined using Spearman correlations, and responsiveness was evaluated using change scores, standardized response means, and receiver operating characteristic analyses anchored to treatment satisfaction (≥ 4/5 on a 5-point Likert scale) at 6 ± 1 months (conservative care) or 3 months (surgical care) to estimate minimal clinically important differences. Baseline Symptom scores showed moderate to strong correlations with established PROs, and QOL scores demonstrated similar associations. Improvements in both scales correlated with changes in established PROs and satisfaction. Responsiveness was large overall and greatest among surgical patients. The minimal clinically important differences were 4 points for the Symptom scale (AUC = 0.69, 95%CI 0.60–0.77) and 14 points for the QOL scale (AUC = 0.72, 95%CI 0.64–0.79). These findings support the validity and responsiveness of both scales and their complementary use in assessing LSS outcomes.
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.