{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,30]],"date-time":"2026-06-30T23:32:43Z","timestamp":1782862363203,"version":"3.54.5"},"reference-count":23,"publisher":"MJS Publishing, Medical Journals Sweden AB","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,9]],"date-time":"2025-01-09T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1736380800000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["ActaO"],"abstract":"<jats:p>Background and purpose:\u00a0Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in adults. Repeated follow-ups after surgery are resource consuming. The aim was to examine whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) change after the first year. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether it is necessary to obtain follow-up data from patients more than 1 year after surgery for DCM.Methods:\u00a0We included individuals treated surgically for DCM in the Swedish Spine registry (Swespine), with available preoperative, 1-, and 2-year PROMs, primarily the European Myelopathy Scale (EMS) and secondarily the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and the European Quality of life Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS). A tertiary analysis included available 5-year data. Median, interquartile range (IQR), and Bland\u2013Altman plots were used to compare PROM data at different follow-up time points.Results:\u00a0642 individuals had baseline, 1-, and 2-year follow-up data, of whom 347 also had 5-year data. EMS was 14 (12\u201316) preoperative, 15 (12\u201317) at the 1-year follow-up, and 15 (12\u201317) at the 2-year follow-up. Corresponding data for NDI was 38 (24\u201350), 25 (12\u201342), and 26 (12\u201342) and for EQ-VAS 50 (30\u201360), 60 (42\u201377), and 60 (40\u201375). Similar findings were seen in individuals who also had 5-year data. Bland\u2013Altman plots indicated good agreement between 1- and 2-year data, and between 1- and 5-year data and were without proportional bias.Conclusion:\u00a0In individuals treated for DCM no clinically meaningful change in PROMs occurred after the 1-year follow-up.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.2340\/17453674.2024.42630","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,9]],"date-time":"2025-01-09T13:49:19Z","timestamp":1736430559000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":2,"title":["1-year data on patient-reported outcome is enough after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a cohort study from the Swedish Spine register"],"prefix":"10.2340","volume":"96","author":[{"given":"Lovisa","family":"Gerdhem","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-9231-7608","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Anna","family":"MacDowall","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-8061-7163","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Paul","family":"Gerdhem","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1183","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,9]]},"reference":[{"key":"93180","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kalsi-Ryan S, Karadimas S K, Fehlings M G. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: the clinical phenomenon and the current pathobiology of an increasingly prevalent and devastating disorder. Neuroscientist 2013; 19: 409-21. doi: 10.1177\/1073858412467377.","DOI":"10.1177\/1073858412467377"},{"key":"93181","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Evaniew N, Coyle M, Rampersaud Y R, Bailey C S, Bradley J W, Cadotte D W, et al. Timing of recovery after surgery for patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: an observational study from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network. Neurosurgery 2023; 92: 271-82. doi: 10.1227\/neu.0000000000002213.","DOI":"10.1227\/neu.0000000000002213"},{"key":"93182","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Badhiwala J H, Witiw C D, Nassiri F, Akbar M A, Mansouri A, Wilson J R, et al. Efficacy and safety of surgery for mild degenerative cervical myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America and International Prospective Multicenter Studies. Neurosurgery 2019; 84: 890-7. doi: 10.1093\/neuros\/nyy133.","DOI":"10.1093\/neuros\/nyy133"},{"key":"93183","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Pandita N, Gupta S, Raina P, Srivastava A, Hakak A Y, Singh O, et al. Neurological recovery pattern in cervical spondylotic myelopathy after anterior surgery: a prospective study with literature review. Asian Spine J 2019; 13: 423-31. doi: 10.31616\/asj.2018.0139.","DOI":"10.31616\/asj.2018.0139"},{"key":"93184","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Khan I, Archer K R, Wanner J P, Byron M, Pennings J S, Sivaganesan A, et al. Trajectory of improvement in myelopathic symptoms from 3 to 12 months following surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery 2020; 86: 763-68. doi: 10.1093\/neuros\/nyz325.","DOI":"10.1093\/neuros\/nyz325"},{"key":"93185","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Moussellard H P, Meyer A, Biot D, Khiami F, Serial E. Early neurological recovery course after surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective study with 2-year follow-up using three different functional assessment tests. Eur Spine J 2014; 23: 1508-14. doi: 10.1007\/s00586-014-3315-x.","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-014-3315-x"},{"key":"93186","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Wang K, Eftang C N, Jakobsen R B, \u00c5r\u00f8en A. Review of response rates over time in registry-based studies using patient-reported outcome measures. BMJ Open 2020; 10: e030808. doi: 10.1136\/bmjopen-2019-030808.","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2019-030808"},{"key":"93187","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Endler P, Ekman P, M\u00f6ller H, Gerdhem P. Outcomes of posterolateral fusion with and without instrumentation and of interbody fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis: a prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99: 743-52. doi: 10.2106\/JBJS.16.00679.","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.16.00679"},{"key":"93188","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Dvorak J, Sutter M, Herdmann J. Cervical myelopathy: clinical and neurophysiological evaluation. Eur Spine J 2003 12: S181-S187. doi: 10.1007\/s00586-003-0631-y.","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-003-0631-y"},{"key":"93189","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Herdmann J, Linzbach M, Krzan M, Dvorak J, Bock W J. The European Myelopathy Score. In: Bauer B L, Brock M, Klinger M, editors. Cerebellar infarct. Midline tumors. Minimally invasive endoscopic neurosurgery (MIEN). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1994. pp 266-8.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-78801-7_43"},{"key":"93190","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"de Dios E, L\u00f6fgren H, Laesser M, Lindhagen L, Bj\u00f6rkman-Butcher I M, MacDowall A. Comparison of the patient-derived modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale and the European myelopathy score. Eur Spine J 2024; 33(3): 1205-12. doi: 10.1007\/s00586-023-08067-8.","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-023-08067-8"},{"key":"93191","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Tetreault L, Nouri A, Kopjar B, C\u00f4t\u00e9 P, Fehlings M G. The minimum clinically important difference of the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Spine 2015; 40: 1653-9. doi: 10.1097\/BRS.0000000000001127.","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000001127"},{"key":"93192","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Burstr\u00f6m K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 621-35. doi: 10.1023\/a:1013171831202.","DOI":"10.1023\/A:1013171831202"},{"key":"93193","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Dolan P, Roberts J. Modelling valuations for EQ-5D health states: an alternative model using differences in valuations. Med Care 2002; 40: 442-6. doi: 10.1097\/00005650-200205000-00009.","DOI":"10.1097\/00005650-200205000-00009"},{"key":"93194","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Joelson A, Nerelius F, Sigmundsson F G, Karlsson J. The minimal important change for the EQ VAS based on the SF-36 health transition item: observations from 25772 spine surgery procedures. Qual Life Res 2022; 31: 3459-66. doi: 10.1007\/s11136-022-03182-3.","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-022-03182-3"},{"key":"93195","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991; 14: 409-15.","DOI":"10.1037\/t35122-000"},{"key":"93196","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Young B A, Walker M J, Strunce J B, Boyles R E, Whitman J M, Childs J D. Responsiveness of the Neck Disability Index in patients with mechanical neck disorders. Spine J 2009; 9: 802-8. doi: 10.1016\/j.spinee.2009.06.002.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2009.06.002"},{"key":"93197","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Hjermstad M J, Fayers P M, Haugen D F, Caraceni A, Hanks G W, Loge J H, et al. Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2011; 41: 1073-93. doi: 10.1016\/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016"},{"key":"93198","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Carreon L Y, Glassman S D, Campbell M J, Anderson P A. Neck Disability Index, Short Form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm paIn: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J 2010; 10: 469-74. doi: 10.1016\/j.spinee.2010.02.007.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2010.02.007"},{"key":"93199","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Pool J J M, Ostelo R W J G, Hoving J L, Bouter L M, de Vet H C W. Minimal clinically important change of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for patients with neck pain. Spine 2007; 32: 3047-51. doi: 10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31815cf75b.","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e31815cf75b"},{"key":"93200","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Medica 2015; 25: 141-51. doi: 10.11613\/BM.2015.015.","DOI":"10.11613\/BM.2015.015"},{"key":"93201","unstructured":"Posit team. RStudio: integrated development environment for R; 2024. Available from: http:\/\/www.posit.co\/"},{"key":"93202","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Endler P, Ekman P, Hellstr\u00f6m F, M\u00f6ller H, Gerdhem P. Minor effect of loss to follow-up on outcome interpretation in the Swedish spine register. Eur Spine J 2020; 29: 213-20. doi: 10.1007\/s00586-019-06181-0.","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-019-06181-0"}],"container-title":["Acta Orthopaedica"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/actaorthop.org\/actao\/article\/download\/42630\/48639","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/actaorthop.org\/actao\/article\/download\/42630\/48678","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/actaorthop.org\/actao\/article\/download\/42630\/48679","content-type":"text\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/actaorthop.org\/actao\/article\/download\/42630\/48639","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,9]],"date-time":"2025-01-09T13:49:38Z","timestamp":1736430578000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/actaorthop.org\/actao\/article\/view\/42630"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,9]]},"references-count":23,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2340\/17453674.2024.42630","relation":{},"ISSN":["1745-3682","1745-3674"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1745-3682","type":"electronic"},{"value":"1745-3674","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,1,9]]}}}