126 Determining the Minimally Clinical Important Difference in Pain, Quality of Life, and Disability for Spinal Cord Stimulation for Failed Neck and Failed Back Syndromes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With rising health care costs, clinical outcome data are becoming increasingly important. The concept of minimally clinical important difference (MCID) has been shown to be effective in spine surgery to differentiate between clinically insignificant and significant improvements and to measure the patient's perspective of quality of life and disability. We sought to determine the MCID for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy for failed neck and back syndromes, which has not been established to date. METHODS: Preoperative and 6-month outcomes were assessed prospectively, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) questionnaires. Patients were asked by a blinded investigator: (1) are they satisfied with SCS therapy and (2) would they have the surgery again? Four methods of calculating the MCID were used, including the average change approach, the minimum detectable change approach, the change difference, and the receiver operating characteristic approach. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients who underwent SCS placement from 2012 to 2014 were prospectively reviewed. Thirty-five (73%) patients stated they were satisfied with SCS therapy and they would have the surgery again. Satisfied patients had an average improvement of 2.9 points on the VAS and 11.5 points on the ODI at 6 months compared with an average decline of 0.78 points on the VAS and 1.8 points on ODI in the patients who were not satisfied with SCS therapy (P = .005, P = .06). The 4 calculation methods yielded a range of outcome scores (ODI 8.2-13.3, BDI 3.2-7, McGill 0.3-1.3, and VAS 1.2-3.7). CONCLUSION: The MCID for SCS placement was calculated by using 4 methods. The results are similar to calculations for the MCID for traditional surgical procedures done for pain. Our results suggest that an improvement of 1.2 to 3.7 points on the VAS scale and 8.2 to 13.3 points on the ODI is clinically meaningful to the patient. Further defining the MCID for SCS therapy will remain of utmost importance in order to justify the cost of the procedure.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".