MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Determinants of quality of life in degenerative cervical myelopathy: a systematic review

2021· article· en· W6958111890 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)MEDLINESystematic reviewMyelopathyCohort studyCohortQuality of evidenceActivities of daily living

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is the most common cause of chronic, progressive spinal cord impairment worldwide. Patients experience substantial pain, functional neurological decline and disability. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) appears to be particularly poor, even when compared to other chronic diseases. However, the determinants of HRQoL are poorly understood. The objective was to perform a systematic review of the determinants of quality of life of people with DCM. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase following PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42018115675). Full-text papers in English, exclusively studying DCM, published before 26 March 2020 were eligible for inclusion and were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. Study sample characteristics, patient demographics, cohort type, HRQoL instrument utilised, HRQoL score, and relationships of HRQoL with other variables were qualitatively synthesised. A total of 1176 papers were identified; 77 papers and 13,572 patients were included in the final analysis. A total of 96% of papers studied surgical cohorts and 86% utilised the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) as a measure of HRQoL. HRQoL determinants were grouped into nine themes. The most common determinant to be assessed was surgical technique (38/77, 49%) and patient satisfaction and experience of pain (10/77, 13%). HRQoL appeared to improve after surgery. Pain was a negative predictor of HRQoL. Current data on the determinants of HRQoL in DCM are limited, contradictory and heterogeneous. Limitations of this systematic review include lack of distinction between DCM subtypes and heterogenous findings amongst the papers in which HRQoL is measured postoperatively or post-diagnosis. This highlights the need for greater standardisation in DCM research to allow further synthesis. Studies of greater precision are necessary to account for HRQoL being complex, multi-factorial and both time and context dependent.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.010
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicEconomic Growth and Productivity→French-language works237,207→