The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Defining Substantial Clinical Benefit Following Lumbar Spine Arthrodesis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Validated health-related quality-of-life measures have become important standards in the evaluation of the outcomes of lumbar spine surgery. However, there are few well-defined criteria for clinical success based on these measures. The minimum clinically important difference is an important demarcation, but it could be considered a floor value rather than a goal in defining clinical success. Therefore, we sought to define thresholds of substantial clinical benefit for commonly used health-related quality-of-life measures following lumbar spine arthrodesis. METHODS: Prospectively collected preoperative and one-year postoperative health-related quality-of-life measures from 357 patients who were managed with lumbar spine arthrodesis for the treatment of degenerative conditions were identified. Candidate substantial clinical benefit thresholds for the Short Form-36 physical component score, Oswestry Disability Index, and back and leg pain numeric rating scales were identified with use of receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to discriminate between patients who reported being "much better" or "about the same" with use of the validated Short Form-36 health transition item and between those who reported being "mostly satisfied" or "unsure" with use of a nonvalidated but more surgery-specific satisfaction-with-results survey. For each health-related quality-of-life measure, three response parameters were used: net change, percent change, and raw score at the time of the one-year follow-up. RESULTS: Substantial clinical benefit thresholds for the Short Form-36 physical component score were a 6.2-point net improvement, a 19.4% improvement, or a final raw score of > or = 35.1 points. Substantial clinical benefit thresholds for the Oswestry Disability Index were an 18.8-point net improvement, a 36.8% improvement, or a final raw score of < 31.3 points. Substantial clinical benefit thresholds for the back pain and leg pain numeric rating scales were a 2.5-point net improvement or a final raw score of < 3.5 points. Substantial clinical benefit thresholds for percent change were 41.4% for the back pain numeric rating scale and 38.8% for the leg pain numeric rating scale. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that thresholds of substantial clinical benefit for commonly used health-related quality-of-life measures following lumbar spine arthrodesis are important as they describe a magnitude of change that the patient recognizes as a major improvement.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
(1992) · PubMed · Cited by 33,716
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033
Fairbank, J. C. T., & Pynsent, P. B. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 · Cited by 5,851
Ware, J. E. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008 · Cited by 4,455
(1994) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,156
Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores.
Osoba, D., Rodrigues, G., Myles, J., Zee, B., & Pater, J. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1998.16.1.139 · Cited by 2,961
Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods
Copay, A. G., Subach, B. R., Glassman, S. D., Polly, D. W., & Schuler, T. C. (2007) · The Spine Journal · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008 · Cited by 1,662
Self-citationWalters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0 · Cited by 1,341
Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life
Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00044-1 · Cited by 1,332
Cited by
The Clinically Important Difference on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale
Shulman, L. M., Gruber-Baldini, A. L., Anderson, K. E., Fishman, P. S., Reich, S. G., & Weiner, W. J. (2010) · Archives of Neurology · doi:10.1001/archneurol.2009.295 · Cited by 494
Adult Spinal Deformity: Epidemiology, Health Impact, Evaluation, and Management
Ames, C. P., Scheer, J. K., Lafage, V., Smith, J. S., Bess, S., Berven, S. H., Mundis, G. M., Sethi, R. K., Deinlein, D. A., Coe, J. D., et al. (2016) · Spine Deformity · doi:10.1016/j.jspd.2015.12.009 · Cited by 284
Self-citationOlsen, M. F., Bjerre, E., Hansen, M. D., Tendal, B., Hilden, J., & Hróbjartsson, A. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.007 · Cited by 282
Archer, K. R., Devin, C. J., Vanston, S. W., Koyama, T., Phillips, S. E., George, S. Z., McGirt, M. J., Spengler, D. M., Aaronson, O. S., Cheng, J. S., et al. (2016) · The Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2015.09.013 · Cited by 219
Cook, J., Hislop, J., Adewuyi, T., Harrild, K., Altman, D., Ramsay, C., Fraser, C., Buckley, B., Fayers, P., Harvey, I., et al. (2014) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta18280 · Cited by 194
Metadata
- Authors
- Glassman, S. D., Copay, A. G., Berven, S. H., Polly, D. W., Subach, B. R., & Carreon, L. Y.
- Venue
- The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1839-1847
- ISSN
- 0021-9355 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2056351197
- Cited by
- 419
- References
- 25
- FWCI
- 5.27
- 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: Defining Substantial Clinical Benefit Following Lumbar Spine Arthrodesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2106/jbjs.g.01095
- The paper
- Glassman, S. D., Copay, A. G., Berven, S. H., Polly, D. W., Subach, B. R., & Carreon, L. Y. (2008). Defining Substantial Clinical Benefit Following Lumbar Spine Arthrodesis. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.g.01095
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.