MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404609698 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.oa.23.00166

Nonoperative Care Versus Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy

2024· article· en· W4404609698 on OpenAlexaff
Markian Pahuta, Mohamed Sarraj, Jason W. Busse, Daipayan Guha, Mohit Bhandari

Bibliographic record

VenueJBJS Open Access · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyelopathyAnterior cervical discectomy and fusionSurgeryQuality of life (healthcare)Natural historyArthroplastySpinal cordCervical spineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) occurs when spondylotic changes compress the spinal cord and cause neurologic dysfunction. Because of a lack of comparative data on nonoperative care versus surgery for DCM, it has been difficult to support patients through the shared decision-making process regarding treatment options. Our objective was to synthesize the best available data in a manner that helps clinicians and patients to weigh the differences between nonoperative care and surgery at different ages and disease severity. The 2 patient-centered questions we sought to answer were (1) "am I more likely to experience worsening myelopathy with nonoperative care, or need more surgery if I have my myelopathy treated operatively?" and (2) "how much better will my quality of life be with nonoperative care versus surgery?" Methods: We used a health economic technique, microsimulation, to model head-to-head comparisons of nonoperative care versus surgery for DCM. We incorporated the best available data, modeled patients over a lifetime horizon, used direct comparators, and incorporated uncertainty in both natural history and treatment effect. Results: Patients with mild DCM at baseline who were ≥75 years of age were less likely to neurologically decline under nonoperative care than to undergo a second surgery if the index surgery was an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc arthroplasty (ADR), or posterior cervical decompression and instrumented fusion (PDIF). Using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), our results suggest that surgery for DCM may be superior to nonoperative care. However, for all patients except those with severe DCM who are of middle age or younger (depending on the procedure, ≤50 to ≤60 years of age), the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in QALYs was <0. Conclusions: In most patient groups, neurologic progression with nonoperative management is more likely than the need for additional cervical surgery following operative management, with the exception of patients 75 to 80 years of age and older with mild DCM. Furthermore, on average, surgery for DCM tends to improve quality of life. However, patients with DCM who are older than middle age should be aware that the estimates of the quality-of-life benefit are highly uncertain, with a lower bound of <0. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBJS Open AccessSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207