{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,7]],"date-time":"2026-08-07T17:54:56Z","timestamp":1786125296268,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":20,"publisher":"Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)","issue":"6","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["NEUROSURGERY","NEUROS"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,12]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>BACKGROUND<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The concept of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has been shown to be effective in spine surgery to differentiate between clinically insignificant and significant improvements as determined by the patient.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>OBJECTIVE<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The MCID for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to date has not been established. We sought to determine the MCID for SCS therapy for failed laminectomy syndromes.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>METHODS<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Preoperative and 6-mo outcomes were assessed prospectively, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and McGill and Visual Analog Survey questionnaires. Patients were asked: (1) are you satisfied with SCS therapy and (2) would you have the surgery again. Four methods of calculating the MCID were utilized.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>RESULTS<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Forty-eight patients who underwent placement of an SCS between 2012 and 2014 were reviewed. The 4 calculation methods yielded a range of outcome scores (ODI 8.2-13.3, BDI 3.2-7, McGill 0.3-1.3, and Visual Analog Scale [VAS] 1.2-3.7). The maximum area under the curve was observed for the ODI, BDI, and VAS (0.73, 0.81, and 0.89, respectively), which signifies acceptable accuracy in distinguishing responders from nonresponders with the receiver operating characteristic method and suggests that VAS may be the most sensitive in determining meaningful change for the patient.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>CONCLUSION<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The MCID for SCS placement was calculated using 4 different methods. The results are similar to calculations for the MCID for many lumbar and cervical procedures done for pain. Our results suggest that an improvement of 1.2 to 3.7 points on the VAS scale and 8.2 to 13.3 points on the ODI is clinically meaningful to the patient. Further defining the MCID for SCS therapy will remain of utmost importance in order to justify the cost of the procedure.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1093\/neuros\/nyx153","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2017,6,6]],"date-time":"2017-06-06T23:11:31Z","timestamp":1496790691000},"page":"1011-1015","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":32,"title":["Establishing Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy in Post-Laminectomy Syndrome"],"prefix":"10.1227","volume":"81","author":[{"given":"Alexandra R","family":"Paul","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Vignessh","family":"Kumar","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Steven","family":"Roth","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"M Reid","family":"Gooch","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Julie G","family":"Pilitsis","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Neurosurgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York"},{"name":"Cen-ter for Neuroscience and Neuropharmac-ology, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"276","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2017,12]]},"reference":[{"issue":"9 suppl","key":"bib1-20231011","first-page":"II166","article-title":"Interpretation of quality-of-life outcomes: issues that affect magnitude and meaning","volume":"38","author":"Testa","year":"2000","journal-title":"Med Care"},{"issue":"4","key":"bib2-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"287","DOI":"10.1080\/00220973.1993.10806591","article-title":"The case against statistical significance testing, revisited","volume":"61","author":"Carver","year":"1993","journal-title":"J Exp Educ"},{"issue":"1","key":"bib3-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"12","DOI":"10.1037\/0022-006X.59.1.12","article-title":"Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research","volume":"59","author":"Jacobson","year":"1991","journal-title":"J Consult Clin Psychol"},{"issue":"7280","key":"bib4-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"226","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.322.7280.226","article-title":"Sifting the evidence-what's wrong with significance tests?","volume":"322","author":"Sterne","year":"2001","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"issue":"4","key":"bib5-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"423","DOI":"10.1093\/scan\/nsp052","article-title":"Type I and type II error concerns in fMRI research: re-balancing the scale","volume":"4","author":"Lieberman","year":"2009","journal-title":"Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci"},{"issue":"1","key":"bib6-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"29","DOI":"10.1148\/radiology.143.1.7063747","article-title":"The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve","volume":"143","author":"Hanley","year":"1982","journal-title":"Radiology"},{"issue":"4","key":"bib7-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"407","DOI":"10.1016\/0197-2456(89)90005-6","article-title":"Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference","volume":"10","author":"Jaeschke","year":"1989","journal-title":"Control Clin Trials"},{"issue":"13","key":"bib8-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1342","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2014.13128","article-title":"Minimal clinically important difference defining what really matters to patients","volume":"312","author":"McGlothlin","year":"2014","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"issue":"5","key":"bib9-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"541","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2007.01.008","article-title":"Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods","volume":"7","author":"Copay","year":"2007","journal-title":"Spine J"},{"issue":"3","key":"bib10-20231011","first-page":"451","article-title":"Osteoarthritis antirheumatic drug trials. III. Setting the delta for clinical trials\u2013results of a consensus development (Delphi) exercise","volume":"19","author":"Bellamy","year":"1992","journal-title":"J Rheumatol"},{"issue":"1","key":"bib11-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"29","DOI":"10.1136\/ard.2004.022905","article-title":"Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement","volume":"64","author":"Tubach","year":"2005","journal-title":"Ann Rheumat Dis"},{"issue":"4","key":"bib12-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"313","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2010.02.001","article-title":"Minimum acceptable outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion","volume":"10","author":"Carragee","year":"2010","journal-title":"Spine J"},{"issue":"6","key":"bib13-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"968","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2007.11.006","article-title":"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","volume":"8","author":"Copay","year":"2008","journal-title":"Spine J"},{"issue":"suppl 3","key":"bib14-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"374","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-009-0931-y","article-title":"The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index","volume":"18","author":"Mannion","year":"2009","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"},{"issue":"2","key":"bib15-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"154","DOI":"10.3171\/2012.10.SPINE12312","article-title":"Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion:a clinical article","volume":"18","author":"Parker","year":"2013","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"issue":"5","key":"bib16-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"598","DOI":"10.3171\/2010.12.SPINE10472","article-title":"Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis","volume":"14","author":"Parker","year":"2011","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"issue":"19","key":"bib17-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1739","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3181d3cfc9","article-title":"Minimal clinically important difference","volume":"35","author":"Gatchel","year":"2010","journal-title":"Spine"},{"issue":"2","key":"bib18-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"109","DOI":"10.1097\/00002281-200203000-00006","article-title":"Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research","volume":"14","author":"Beaton","year":"2002","journal-title":"Curr Opin Rheumatol"},{"issue":"5","key":"bib19-20231011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"333","DOI":"10.1007\/s10877-009-9201-0","article-title":"Spinal cord stimulation: principles of past, present and future practice: a review","volume":"23","author":"Kunnumpurath","year":"2009","journal-title":"J Clin Monitor Comput"},{"key":"bib1a-20231011"}],"container-title":["Neurosurgery"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/academic.oup.com\/neurosurgery\/article-pdf\/81\/6\/1011\/32599700\/nyx153.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/00006123-201712000-00015","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,7]],"date-time":"2026-08-07T16:53:19Z","timestamp":1786121599000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/00006123-201712000-00015"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2017,6,21]]},"references-count":20,"journal-issue":{"issue":"6","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/neuros\/nyx153","relation":{},"ISSN":["0148-396X","1524-4040"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0148-396X","type":"print"},{"value":"1524-4040","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2017,6,21]]}}}