Change in Function, Pain and Quality of Life following Structured Nonoperative Treatment in Patients with Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Title: Change in Function, Pain and Quality of Life following Structured Nonoperative Treatment in Patients with Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Systematic Review \n \nAuthors: Lindsay Tetreault1, Mohammed Shamji1, John Rhee2, Heidi Prather3, Jeff Wilson1, Ian B. Andersson4, Anna H. Dembek4, Krystle Pagarigan5, Joseph R. Dettori5, Michael G. Fehlings1 \n \nAffiliations: 1. Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto 2. Emory clinic, Atlanta 3. School of Medicine, Washington University at St. Louis 4. School of Physical Therapy, University of Puget Sound 5. Spectrum Research, Tacoma\nPurpose: To perform a systematic review of the current literature to analyze (1) the change in pain, function, and quality of life resulting from structured nonoperative treatment for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM); (2) the variability of change in function, pain and quality of life after different nonoperative treatments; (3) the differences in outcomes observed among subgroups (i.e baseline severity score, duration of symptoms); and (4) negative outcomes and harms resulting from physical therapy intervention.\nMaterials and Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Embase, the Cochrane Collaboration, and PubMed for research published between January 1, 1950 and February 9, 2015. Articles were included if they evaluated outcomes related to structured nonoperative treatment, including manual therapy, therapeutic exercise, cervical bracing and/or traction. Outcomes of interest include functional status (Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), Nurick), upper extremity and neck pain, quality of life (Neck Disability Index), and/or surgical intervention. The quality of each study was assessed using the Newcaste-Ottawa Scale and the strength of evidence was rated using guidelines from the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group.\nResults: Of the 570 citations, eight met the criteria for inclusion in this review. There is very low evidence implying that structured nonoperative treatment for DCM garners a positive or negative change in pain, function, and quality of life as interpreted by the JOA score. There is also limited evidence from three studies showing that early nonoperative treatment (symptoms <1 year) is associated with positive clinical outcomes. No studies directly compared structured nonoperative treatment types nor explored outcomes based on patient subgroups. The incidence of conversion to surgery ranged from 23-54%; primarily involving cases of mild or moderate myelopathy (JOA≥12).\nConclusion: There is a general lack of evidence to discern the role of nonoperative treatment for patients with DCM. In the majority of studies, however, patients did not achieve clinically significant gains in functional status with structured nonoperative treatment. Rates of failed conservative treatment among all included studies were between 23-54%.\nClinical Relevance: The role of structured nonoperative treatment for the management of DCM is not well defined, and the typical recommendation for patients with moderate to severe DCM is surgical intervention.\nReferences: Fehlings MG, Ibrahim A, Tetreault L, et al. A Global Perspective on the Outcomes of Surgical Decompression in Patients with Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Results from the Prospective Multicenter AOSpine International Study on 479 patients. Spine. 2015. Nurick S. The natural history and the results of surgical treatment of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain : a journal of neurology. 1972;95(1):101-108. Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Epidemiology, Genetics, and Pathogenesis. Spine. 2015;40(12):E675-693. \nKey Words: cervical myelopathy, degenerative myelopathy, nonsurgical management, nonoperative, conservative, physical therapy, manual therapy, therapeutic exercise, cervical traction, OPLL, spondylotic myelopathy, cervical stenosis
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,042 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».