MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402898738 · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2024.09.024

Satisfaction in surgically treated patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: an observational study from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network

2024· article· en· W4402898738 on OpenAlexafffundabout
William Chu Kwan, Tamir Ailon, Nicolas Dea, Nathan Evaniew, Y. Raja Rampersaud, W. Bradley Jacobs, Jérôme Paquet, Jefferson R. Wilson, Hamilton Hall, Christopher S. Bailey, Michael H. Weber, Andrew Nataraj, David W. Cadotte, Philippe Phan, Sean Christie, Charles G. Fisher, Supriya Singh, Neil Manson, Kenneth Thomas, Jay Toor, Alex Soroceanu, Greg McIntosh, Raphaële Charest-Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Spine Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsCanadian Respiratory Research NetworkUniversity of ManitobaDalhousie UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaAlberta Hospital EdmontonLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityUniversité LavalMcGill University Health CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersAOSpineCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOrthopedic Research and Education FoundationStrykerNuVasiveMedtronicOrthopaedic Research and Education Foundation
KeywordsMedicineMyelopathyObservational studyCervical spinePhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicinePsychiatrySpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Healthcare reimbursement is evolving towards a value-based model, entwined and emphasizing patient satisfaction. Factors associated with satisfaction after degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) surgery have not been previously established. PURPOSE: Our primary objective was to ascertain satisfaction rates and satisfaction predictors at 3 and 12 months following surgical treatment for DCM. DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study within Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN). PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients in the study were surgically treated for DCM patients who completed 3-month and 12-month follow-ups within CSORN between 2015 and 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Data analyzed included patient demographic, surgical variables, patient-reported outcomes (NDI, NRS-NP, NRS-AP, SF-12-MCS, SF-12-PCS, ED-5Q, PHQ-8), MJOA and self-reported satisfaction on a Likert scale. METHODS: Multivariable regression analysis was conducted to identify significant factors associated with satisfaction, address multicollinearity and ensure predictive accuracy. This process was conducted separately for the 3-month and 12-month follow-ups. RESULTS: Six hundred and sixty-three patients were included, with an average age of 60, and an even distribution across MJOA scores (mild, moderate, severe). At 3-month and 12-month follow-up, satisfaction rates were 86% and 82%, respectively. At 12 months, logistic regression showed the odds of being satisfied varied by +24%, -3%, -10%, -14%, +3%, and +12% for each 1-point change between baseline and 12 months in MJOA, NDI, NRS-NP, NRS-AP, SF-12-MCS, SF-12-PCS. Satisfaction increased 11-fold for each 0.1-point increased in ED-5Q from baseline to 12 months. At baseline, for every 1-point increase in SF-12-MCS, the odds of being satisfied increased by 7%. At 3 months, all PROs (except for NRS-AP change and baseline SF-12-MCS) predicted satisfaction. All logistic regression analyses demonstrated excellent predictive accuracy, with the highest 12-month AUC of 0.86 (95%CI=0.81-0.90). No patient demographic or surgical factors influenced satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in Patient Reported Outcomes and MJOA are strongly associated with patient satisfaction after surgery for DCM. The only baseline PRO associated with 12-months satisfaction was SF-12-MCS. No modifiable patient baseline characteristic or surgical variables were associated with satisfaction.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Spine JournalSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207