Effectiveness of Operative and Nonoperative Care for Adult Spinal Deformity: Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: There is a need for synthesizing data on effectiveness of treatments for patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) due to its increasing prevalence and health care costs for these patients. The objective of this review was to estimate the effectiveness of surgery versus nonoperative care in patients with ASD. METHODS: A systematic review of articles in published in English using PubMed between 2005 and 2015. Surgical and nonsurgical series that reported baseline and follow-up health-related quality of life measures of patients with ASD with a minimum 2 years of follow-up were selected. Independent extraction of articles by 2 authors using predefined data fields, including risk of bias assessment. RESULTS: Surgery significantly reduces disability, pain, and improves patients' quality of life. The average postoperative improvement in Oswestry Disability Index was -19.1 (±9.0), Numerical Rating Scale back pain -4.14 (±1.38), Numerical Rating Scale leg pain -3.36 (±1.33), Short-Form Health Survey 36-SF36-Physical Component score 11.2 (±5.07), and Short-Form Health Survey 36-Mental Component score 9.93 (±4.96). The complication rate ranged from 9.52% to 81.52% (mean = 39.62%), and the need for revision surgery ranged from 1.72% to 40.0% (mean = 15.71%). The best existing evidence about nonoperative care of ASD is provided from observational studies with very high risk of bias. Quantitative analyses of nonsurgical cohorts did not demonstrate significant changes in quality of life of patients after 2 years of observation. CONCLUSIONS: This data may assist clinicians to counsel patients, as well as to inform health care providers and policymakers about what to expect from the treatment for ASD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".