MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342515787 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20150001

Does the wait for lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis surgery have a detrimental effect on patient outcomes? A prospective observational study

2016· article· en· W2342515787 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Christopher S. Bailey, Kevin R. Gurr, S. Bailey, David C. Taylor, M. Patricia Rosas‐Arellano, C. Tallon, Y Bureau, Jennifer Urquhart

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOswestry Disability IndexObservational studyLumbar spinal stenosisPhysical therapySpinal stenosisClaudicationMinimal clinically important differenceProspective cohort studyNeurogenic claudicationReferralLumbarSurgeryIntermittent claudicationQuality of life (healthcare)Low back painInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialVascular disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Waits for elective spine surgery are common in Canada. We examined whether a prolonged wait for surgery for lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis was detrimental to outcome. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we enrolled 166 consecutive patients referred to our centre for treatment of lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis between 2006 and 2010. Outcome measures were assessed at referral, preoperatively and until 24 months postoperatively. Primary outcome measures were the physical and mental component summary scores of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey and the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcome measures included the symptom severity scale of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, a numeric rating scale for back and leg pain, and patient satisfaction with treatment. Wait time was defined as the time from referral to surgery. RESULTS: The follow-up rate at 2 years was 85%. The median wait time was 349 days. All health-related quality of life measures deteriorated during the waiting period, but there was no significant correlation between wait time and magnitude of the change in outcome measure. At 6 months postoperatively, the Pearson correlation was significantly positive between wait time and change in disability (r = 0.223), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire score (r = 0.2) and leg pain score (r = 0.221). At 12 months, the correlation remained significant for change in disability (r = 0.205) and was significant for change in mental well-being (r = -0.224). At 12 months, patients with a shorter wait (≤ 12 months) showed greater improvement in mental well-being (mean difference in change [and 95% confidence interval (CI)] 5.7 [1.4-9.9]) and decrease in disability (-9.3 [95% CI -15.1 to -3.6]) and leg pain (-1.6 [95% CI -3.0 to -0.3]). There were no statistically significant differences in outcome or patient satisfaction with treatment between those with shorter and longer waits at 24 months. INTERPRETATION: Patients awaiting spinal surgery experienced deterioration in health-related quality of life irrespective of the length of wait time. However, longer waits were associated with a delay in recovery during the first year after surgery.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207