Vos, T. et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2010. Lancet 380, 2163–2196 (2012).
Google Scholar
Reynolds, D. et al. Physical disability among Canadians reporting musculoskeletal diseases. J. Rhuematol. 19, 1020–1030 (1992).
Google Scholar
Nayak, N. R. et al. Quality of life in patients undergoing spine surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Spine J. 9, 67–76 (2019).
Google Scholar
Mokhtar, S. A. et al. Health-related quality of life: a comparison of outcomes after lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis with large joint replacement surgery and population norms. Spine J. 10, 306–312 (2010).
Google Scholar
Murray, C. J. L. et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2010. Lancet 380, 2197–2223. (2012).
Google Scholar
Deyo, R. A. et al. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. Jama 303, 1259–1265. (2010).
Google Scholar
Cram, P. et al. Utilization and outcomes for spine surgery in the united States and Canada. Spine (Phila Pa. 1976). 44, 1371–1380. (2019).
Google Scholar
Foundation, C. O. First Ministers’ Health Accord 2004. Position Statement on First Ministers’ Health Accord 2004–March 2005., (2004). http://www.canorth.org/en/docs/
Rampersaud, Y. R. et al. Postoperative improvement in health-related quality of life: a National comparison of surgical treatment for focal (one-to two-level) lumbar spinal stenosis compared with total joint arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. Spine J. 11, 1033–1041 (2011).
Google Scholar
Rampersaud, Y. R. et al. Assessment of health-related quality of life after surgical treatment of focal symptomatic spinal stenosis compared with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Spine J. 8, 296–304 (2008).
Google Scholar
Rampersaud, Y. R., Lewis, S. J., Davey, J. R., Gandhi, R. & Mahomed, N. N. Comparative outcomes and cost-utility after surgical treatment of focal lumbar spinal stenosis compared with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee–part 1: long-term change in health-related quality of life. Spine J. 14, 234–243. (2014).
Google Scholar
Rampersaud, Y. R. et al. Comparative outcomes and cost-utility following surgical treatment of focal lumbar spinal stenosis compared with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: part 2–estimated lifetime incremental cost-utility ratios. Spine J. 14, 244–254. (2014).
Google Scholar
Issa, T. Z. et al. Values derived from patient reported outcomes in spine surgery: a systematic review of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state. Eur. Spine J. 32, 3333–3351. (2023).
Google Scholar
Sedaghat, A. R. Understanding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of Patient-Reported outcome measures. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 161, 551–560. (2019).
Google Scholar
Harris, J. D., Brand, J. C., Cote, M., Waterman, B. & Dhawan, A. Guidelines for proper reporting of clinical significance, including minimal clinically important difference, patient acceptable symptomatic State, substantial clinical benefit, and maximal outcome improvement. Arthroscopy 39, 145–150. (2023).
Google Scholar
Hopman, W. et al. Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. CMAJ 163 (2000).
Wood-Dauphinee, S. The Canadian SF-36 health survey: normative data add to its value. Cmaj 163, 283–284 (2000).
Google Scholar
McIntosh, G., Craig, M. & Fisher, C. Development and implementation of a National Canadian spine surgery registry. J. Curr. Clin. Care. 10, 21–31 (2020).
Badhiwala, J. H. et al. Minimum clinically important difference in SF-36 scores for use in degenerative cervical myelopathy. Spine 43, E1260–E1266 (2018).
Google Scholar
Rampersaud, Y. R. et al. Health-related quality of life following decompression compared to decompression and fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a Canadian multicentre study. Can. J. Surg. 57, E126–133. (2014).
Google Scholar
Bess, S. et al. The health impact of symptomatic adult spinal deformity: comparison of deformity types to united States population norms and chronic diseases. Spine (Phila Pa. 1976). 41, 224–233. (2016).
Google Scholar
Kato, S. et al. Minimum clinically important difference in outcome scores among patients undergoing cervical laminoplasty. Eur. Spine J. 28, 1234–1241. (2019).
Google Scholar
Badhiwala, J. et al. (ed, H.) Minimum clinically important difference in SF-36 scores for use in degenerative cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa. 1976) 43 E1260–e1266 (2018).
Google Scholar
Zhou, F. et al. Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in neurological function and quality of life after surgery in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients: a prospective cohort study. Eur. Spine J. 24, 2918–2923. (2015).
Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Zhou, F. & Sun, Y. Assessment of health-related quality of life using the SF-36 in Chinese cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients after surgery and its consistency with neurological function assessment: a cohort study. Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 13, 39. (2015).
Google Scholar
Auffinger, B. M. et al. Measuring surgical outcomes in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: assessment of minimum clinically important difference. PLoS One. 8, e67408. (2013).
Google Scholar
Nie, J. W. et al. Minimum Clinically Important Difference in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Neurosurgery (2023). https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000002350
Nie, J. W. et al. Establishing minimum clinically important difference for patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Acta Neurochir. 165, 325–334. (2023).
Google Scholar
Nie, J. W. et al. Establishing Minimum Clinically Important Difference Thresholds for Physical Function and Pain in Patients Undergoing Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion. World Neurosurg (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2023.03.087
Nakarai, H. et al. Minimal clinically important difference in patients who underwent decompression alone for lumbar degenerative disease. Spine J. 22, 549–560. (2022).
Google Scholar
Ogura, Y. et al. Minimum clinically important difference of major patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 196, 105966. (2020).
Google Scholar
Carreon, L. Y. et al. Differentiating minimum clinically important difference for primary and revision lumbar fusion surgeries. J. Neurosurg. Spine. 18, 102–106. (2013).
Google Scholar
Parker, S. L. et al. Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease. J. Neurosurg. Spine. 16, 61–67. (2012).
Google Scholar
Parker, S. L. et al. Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: Understanding clinical versus statistical significance. J. Neurosurg. Spine. 16, 471–478. (2012).
Google Scholar
Copay, A. G. et al. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry disability index, medical outcomes study questionnaire short form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 8, 968–974. (2008).
Google Scholar
Parker, S. L. et al. Determination of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in pain, disability, and quality of life after revision fusion for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. Spine J. 12, 1122–1128. (2012).
Google Scholar
Cuschieri, S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J. Anaesth. 13, S31–s34. (2019).
Google Scholar
Block, A. R., Ohnmeiss, D. D., Guyer, R. D., Rashbaum, R. F. & Hochschuler, S. H. The use of presurgical psychological screening to predict the outcome of spine surgery. Spine J. 1, 274–282 (2001).
Google Scholar
Hopman, W. et al. Associations between chronic disease, age and physical and mental health status. Chronic Dis. Can. 29, 108–116 (2009).
Google Scholar
Hartman, C. J. & Hoh, D. J. in In Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy and Radiculopathy: Treatment Approaches and Options. 53–65 (eds Kaiser, M. G., Haid, R. W., Shaffrey, C. I. & Fehlings, M. G.) (Springer International Publishing, 2019).
Evaniew, N. et al. Clinical predictors of achieving the minimal clinically important difference after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: an external validation study from the Canadian spine outcomes and research network. J. Neurosurg. Spine. 1–9. (2020).
Karim, S. M. et al. Effectiveness of surgical decompression in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: results of the Canadian prospective multicenter study. Neurosurgery 89, 844–851. (2021).
Google Scholar
Zuckerman, S. L. & Devin, C. J. Outcomes and value in elective cervical spine surgery: an introductory and practical narrative review. J. Spine Surg. 6, 89–105. (2020).
Google Scholar
Perruccio, A. V. et al. The impact of multijoint symptoms on patient-reported disability following surgery for lumbar spine osteoarthritis. Spine J. 21, 80–89. (2021).
Google Scholar
Gates, M. et al. Defining the relative utility of lumbar spine surgery: A systematic literature review of common surgical procedures and their impact on health States. J. Clin. Neurosci. 93, 160–167. (2021).
Google Scholar
Annual Report, C. I. H. I. C. J. R. R. 2020–2021 — Updated September 2022CIHI, Ottawa, ON,. (2022).
Hamilton, D. F. et al. What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open. 3 (2013).
Ayling, O. G. S. et al. Clinical outcomes research in spine surgery: what are appropriate follow-up times? J. Neurosurg. Spine. 30, 397–404. (2018).
Google Scholar
Weinstein, J. N. et al. Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. four-year results in the spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 91, 1295–1304. (2009).
Google Scholar
Weinstein, J. N. et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine (Phila Pa. 1976). 35, 1329–1338. (2010).
Google Scholar
Weinstein, J. N. et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: four-year results for the spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa. 1976). 33, 2789–2800. (2008).
Google Scholar
van Hooff, M. L. et al. Evidence and practice in spine registries. Acta Orthop. 86, 534–544. (2015).
Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, E. et al. The Norwegian registry for spine surgery (NORspine): cohort profile. Eur. Spine J. 32, 3713–3730. (2023).
Google Scholar
Pascucci, S. et al. National spine surgery registries’ characteristics and aims: globally accepted standards have yet to be Met. Results of a scoping review and a complementary survey. J. Orthop. Traumatol. 24, 49. (2023).
Google Scholar
Canfield, M., Savoy, L., Cote, M. P. & Halawi, M. J. Patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: defining the optimal collection window. Arthroplasty Today. 6, 62–67. (2020).
Google Scholar
Ray, G. S., Ekelund, P., Nemes, S., Rolfson, O. & Mohaddes, M. Changes in health-related quality of life are associated with patient satisfaction following total hip replacement: an analysis of 69,083 patients in the Swedish hip arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop. 91, 48–52. (2020).
Google Scholar
Solberg, T. K., Sørlie, A., Sjaavik, K., Nygaard, Ø., Ingebrigtsen, T. & P. & Would loss to follow-up bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine? Acta Orthop. 82, 56–63. (2011).
Google Scholar
Højmark, K., Støttrup, C., Carreon, L. & Andersen, M. O. Patient-reported outcome measures unbiased by loss of follow-up. Single-center study based on DaneSpine, the Danish spine surgery registry. Eur. Spine J. 25, 282–286. (2016).
Google Scholar
Elkan, P., Lagerbäck, T., Möller, H. & Gerdhem, P. Response rate does not affect patient-reported outcome after lumbar discectomy. Eur. Spine J. 27, 1538–1546. (2018).
Google Scholar
link