A systematic review of bio-psychosocial risk factors for an unfavourable outcome after lumbar disc surgery
Open accessAbstract
The objective of this systematic review is to summarize scientific evidence concerning the predictive value of bio-psychosocial risk factors with regard to the outcome after lumbar disc surgery. Medical and psychological databases were used to locate potentially relevant articles, which resulted in the selection of 11 studies. Each of these studies has a prospective design that examined the predictive value of preoperative variables for the outcome of lumbar disc surgery. Results indicated that socio-demographic, clinical, work-related as well as psychological factors predict lumbar disc surgery outcome. Findings showed relatively consistently that a lower level of education, a higher level of preoperative pain, less work satisfaction, a longer duration of sick leave, higher levels of psychological complaints and more passive avoidance coping function as predictors of an unfavourable outcome in terms of pain, disability, work capacity, or a combination of these outcome measures. The results of this review provide preliminary opportunities to select patients at risk for an unfavourable outcome. However, further systematic and methodologically high quality research is required, particularly for those predictors that can be positively influenced by multidisciplinary interventions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 71 · Cited by 196
- Authors
- den Boer, J. J., Oostendorp, R. A. B., Beems, T., Munneke, M., Oerlemans, M., & Evers, A. W. M.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
- Venue
- European Spine Journal
- Published
- 2005-05-25
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 527-536
- ISSN
- 0940-6719 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-0932
- PMC
- PMC3489340
- OpenAlex
- W2155710149
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 0.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- European Spine Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
- Keywords
- lumbar disc surgery, surgical outcome prediction, preoperative predictors, low educational attainment, preoperative pain, job satisfaction, sick leave duration, psychological complaints, pain and disability, work capacity, patient selection
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Educational Status, Humans, Intervertebral Disc Displacement, Lumbar Vertebrae, Postoperative Complications, Psychology, Quality of Life, Risk Factors, Low Back Pain, Diskectomy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
