The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment of the Minimum Clinically Important Difference in the Timed Up and Go Test After Surgery for Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The Timed Up and Go Test (TUG Test) has previously been described as a reliable tool to evaluate objective functional impairment in patients with degenerative disc disease. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the TUG Test. METHODS: The TUG Test (measured in seconds) was correlated with validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) of pain intensity (Visual Analog Scale for back and leg pain), functional impairment (Oswestry Disability Index, Roland Morris Disability Index), and health-related quality of life measures (Short Form-12 and EuroQol 5D). Three established methods were used to establish anchor-based MCID values using responders of the following PROs (Visual Analog Scale back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, Roland Morris Disability Index, EuroQol 5D index, and Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary) as anchors: (1) average change, (2) minimum detectable change, and (3) change difference approach. RESULTS: One hundred patients with a mean ± SD age of 56.2 ± 16.1 years, 57 (57%) male, 45 patients undergoing microdiscectomy, 35 undergoing lumbar decompression, and 20 undergoing fusion surgery were studied. The 3 MCID computation methods revealed a range of MCID values according to the PRO used from 0.9 s (Oswestry Disability Index based on the change difference approach) to 6.0 s (EuroQol 5D index based on the minimum detectable change approach), with a mean MCID of 3.4 s for all measured PROs. CONCLUSION: The MCID for the TUG Test time is highly variable depending on the computation technique used. The average TUG Test MCID was 3.4 s using all 3 methods and all anchors.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“for TUG, the minimum clinically important difference is 3.4 seconds [36].”
From Pilot study of a telehealth perioperative physical activity intervention for older adults with cancer and their caregivers (2020) · cites this paper as [36]
Citations
Cites
Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6 · Cited by 4,982
Ostelo, R. W. J. G., Deyo, R. A., Stratford, P., Waddell, G., Croft, P., Von Korff, M., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2008) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31815e3a10 · Cited by 2,009
Copay, A. G., Glassman, S. D., Subach, B. R., Berven, S., Schuler, T. C., & Carreon, L. Y. (2008) · The Spine Journal · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006 · Cited by 1,300
Sensitivity to Change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: Part 1
Stratford, P. W., Binkley, J. M., Riddle, D. L., & Guyatt, G. H. (1998) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/78.11.1186 · Cited by 427
Park, P., Godil, S. S., Shau, D. N., Mendenhall, S. K., & McGirt, M. J. (2012) · Journal of Neurosurgery Spine · doi:10.3171/2012.10.spine12312 · Cited by 380
Park, P., Mendenhall, S. K., Shau, D. N., Adogwa, O., Anderson, W. N., Devin, C. J., & McGirt, M. J. (2012) · Journal of Neurosurgery Spine · doi:10.3171/2012.1.spine11842 · Cited by 261
Park, P., Mendenhall, S. K., Shau, D. N., Adogwa, O., Cheng, J. S., Anderson, W. N., Devin, C. J., & McGirt, M. J. (2011) · Journal of Neurosurgery Spine · doi:10.3171/2011.8.spine1194 · Cited by 154
Gautschi, O. P., Smoll, N. R., Corniola, M. V., Joswig, H., Chau, I., Hildebrandt, G., Schaller, K., & Stienen, M. N. (2015) · Neurosurgery · doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000001195 · Cited by 119
Self-citationMobbs, R. J., Phan, K. H., Maharaj, M. M., & Rao, P. J. (2015) · Global Spine Journal · doi:10.1055/s-0035-1565259 · Cited by 96
The timed up and go test for lumbar degenerative disc disease
Gautschi, O. P., Corniola, M. V., Joswig, H., Smoll, N. R., Chau, I., Jucker, D., & Stienen, M. N. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2015.04.018 · Cited by 53
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Liu-Ambrose, T., Davis, J. C., Best, J. R., Dian, L., Madden, K., Cook, W., Hsu, C. L., & Khan, K. M. (2019) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.5795 · Cited by 291
Lotzke, H., Brisby, H., Gutke, A., Hägg, O., Jakobsson, M., Smeets, R., & Lundberg, M. (2019) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/pzz020 · Cited by 112
Exercise for improving outcomes after osteoporotic vertebral fracture
Gibbs, J. C., MacIntyre, N. J., Ponzano, M., Templeton, J. A., Thabane, L., Παπαϊωάννου, Α., & Giangregorio, L. (2019) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008618.pub3 · Cited by 98
Stienen, M. N., Ho, A. L., Staartjes, V. E., Maldaner, N., Veeravagu, A., Desai, A. M., Gautschi, O. P., Bellut, D., Regli, L., Ratliff, J. K., et al. (2019) · The Spine Journal · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2019.02.014 · Cited by 97
Self-citationKlukowska, A. M., Vandertop, W. P., Schröder, M. L., & Staartjes, V. E. (2024) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-024-08369-5 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Gautschi, O. P., Stienen, M. N., Corniola, M. V., Joswig, H., Schaller, K., Hildebrandt, G., & Smoll, N. R.
- Affiliations
- University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
- Kantonsspital St. Gallen (CH)
- University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Smoll, Nicolas R.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Neurosurgery
- Published
- 2017-01-13
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 380-385
- ISSN
- 0148-396X (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4040
- OpenAlex
- W2466306821
- Cited by
- 143
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 9.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.zora.uzh.ch
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Neurosurgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
- Keywords
- Timed Up and Go test, minimal clinically important difference, lumbar degenerative disc disease, postoperative functional recovery, patient-reported outcome measures, anchor-based MCID, microdiscectomy, lumbar decompression, spinal fusion, Oswestry Disability Index, health-related quality of life, gait and balance
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Disability Evaluation, Female, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Lumbar Vertebrae, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Quality of Life, Treatment Outcome, Diskectomy, Decompression, Surgical, Intervertebral Disc Degeneration, Visual Analog Scale
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
