ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Toward the Optimal Way to Assess Symptomatic Fatigue in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Mixed Methods Survey Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent work has demonstrated that individuals with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) often experience symptoms of fatigue that are underrepresented in the literature. Conversely, understanding fatigue is highly important to people living with DCM. The AO Spine RECODE-DCM (Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy) study group recently determined that no suitable fatigue scales exist for DCM.
objectiveAn assessment of content validity of existing fatigue scales used in other populations was undertaken to determine whether any such scales are suitable for DCM.
methodsAn expert panel of people with DCM was convened. The panel comprised members of the RECODE-DCM steering committee, and their DCM ranged in severity from mild to severe; all resided in the United Kingdom or the United States. They were presented with 19 instruments in use for other pathologies and developed a quantitative description of relevance to DCM. The committee scored each scale on clarity and comprehensiveness. We conducted a preliminary qualitative analysis of comments on the various attributes of each instrument to establish themes distinguishing high-scoring from lower-scoring instruments.
resultsThe highest-scoring scales were the (1) Modified Fatigue Impact Scale for Spinal Cord Injury (relevance=3.78; comprehensiveness=3.56; clarity=4), (2) Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (3.67, 3.56, and 3.89, respectively), and (3) Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue Scale (3.56, 3.56, and 3.89, respectively). Common themes used in discussing various instruments were sleep, pain, psychosocial factors, and employment.
conclusionsThe Modified Fatigue Impact Scale for Spinal Cord Injury, Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue Scale appear to be the most appropriate and validated instruments for assessing fatigue in patients with DCM. These scales demonstrate strong psychometric properties while addressing the unique symptomatic profile and functional limitations characteristic of DCM, enabling more accurate measurement and clinical monitoring of fatigue in this patient population.
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.