Observational studyBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Is pain relief enough? Early response discordance after lumbar decompressive surgery: a prospective cohort study.
Observational study in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferent patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may classify the same patient differently as a treatment responder after lumbar decompressive surgery. We aimed to quantify inter-instrument agreement on minimal clinically important difference (MCID)-based responder status at one month postoperatively, characterize multi-dimensional response discordance, and identify independent one-month PROM predictors of one-month patient dissatisfaction.
methodsIn this prospective observational cohort study, 158 consecutive adults undergoing lumbar decompressive surgery for disc herniation (n = 77) or spinal stenosis (n = 81) at a single neurosurgical centre were enrolled; all underwent single-level decompression of the symptomatic level. Of these, 134 (84.8%) completed paired baseline and one-month assessments using the Visual Analogue Scale for leg pain (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D-5 L utility index. MCID thresholds were derived from external sources (VAS ≥ 1.5 points, ODI ≥ 10 points, EQ-5D-5 L ≥ 0.10). Inter-instrument agreement was quantified using Cohen's kappa (κ). Patient dissatisfaction was defined by the satisfaction subscale of the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (SSSQ > 12). Independent predictors of dissatisfaction were identified by multivariable linear regression with bootstrapped confidence intervals.
resultsAll instruments showed significant improvement at one month (all p < 0.001). MCID-based responder rates differed markedly: VAS 82.1%, EQ-5D-5 L 83.6%, and ODI 54.5%. Inter-instrument agreement was slight to fair (κ = 0.19-0.29); Only 47.0% of patients achieved MCID across all three instruments simultaneously, while 94.0% achieved it on at least one - producing a 47-percentage-point disagreement zone. A total of 39.6% (53/134) of patients experienced VAS and/or EQ-5D-5 L improvement without corresponding ODI improvement. 23% (31/134) of patients were dissatisfied at one month. In multivariable regression adjusted for age, sex, and diagnosis (R² = 0.40), one-month EQ-5D-5 L items of mobility limitation and anxiety/depression, together with residual functional disability (ODI total), independently predicted dissatisfaction; residual pain did not.
conclusionsInstrument selection alone changes responder classification rates by nearly 30% points at one month after lumbar decompressive surgery. Dissatisfaction is driven by residual functional limitation and psychological distress, not residual pain. Multi-dimensional PROM assessment with diagnosis-informed instrument selection may help identify, at the early postoperative visit, patients requiring targeted rehabilitation and psychological support.
trial registrationNot applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.