Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 554

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validation of the Korean Version of the Oswestry Disability Index

Kim, Dong-Yun, Lee, Sang-Ho, Lee, Ho-Yeon, Lee, Hyun-Ju, Chang, Sang-Beom, Chung, Sang-Ki, Kim, Hyun-Jib·2005·Spine

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: This study was conducted by retrospective case selection and prospective observation of longitudinal changes of the multifidus muscle cross-sectional area and of trunk extension muscle strength in percutaneous and open pedicle screw fixations. OBJECTIVES: To compare postoperative multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk muscle performance of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation against those of open pedicle screw fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recent attempts to combine percutaneous pedicle screw fixation with minimally invasive fusion techniques are based on an anecdotal presupposition that percutaneous pedicle screw fixation is superior to its open counterpart. However, the benefits of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation are currently poorly defined. METHODS: Nineteen enrolled patients were divided as follows: 11 in the open pedicle screw fixation group (OPF group) and eight in the percutaneous pedicle screw fixation group (PPF group). The preoperative and postoperative cross-sectional area and T2-weighted signal intensity of multifidus muscle were measured by MRI, and trunk extension muscle strength was measured. In addition, various clinical variables were compared between two groups. RESULTS: There was significant decrease in the cross-sectional area of multifidus muscle in the OPF group. In contrast, the results in the PPF group showed no statistical difference between preoperative results and that of the follow-up MRI. Although percutaneous pedicle screw fixation had positive effects on postoperative trunk muscle performance, clinical outcomes were not significantly different in areas of pain score, JOA score, and patient's opinion regarding the outcome of the surgery. However, percutaneous pedicle screw fixation caused less blood loss, and the proportion of patients who did not need postoperative oral analgesics was greater in the PPF group. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation caused less paraspinal muscle damage than open pediclescrew fixation and had positive effects on postoperative trunk muscle performance.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.brs.0000157172.00635.3a

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

See all 554

Metadata

Authors
Kim, D.-Y., Lee, S.-H., Lee, H.-Y., Lee, H.-J., Chang, S.-B., Chung, S.-K., & Kim, H.-J.
Venue
Spine
Published
2005-03
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
E123-E127
ISSN
0362-2436
OpenAlex
W2102309343
Cited by
554
References
28
FWCI
9.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validation of the Korean Version of the Oswestry Disability Index. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.brs.0000157172.00635.3a
The paper
Kim, D.-Y., Lee, S.-H., Lee, H.-Y., Lee, H.-J., Chang, S.-B., Chung, S.-K., & Kim, H.-J. (2005). Validation of the Korean Version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000157172.00635.3a

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.