• Login
    View Item 
    •   UMB Digital Archive
    • UMB Open Access Articles
    • UMB Open Access Articles
    • View Item
    •   UMB Digital Archive
    • UMB Open Access Articles
    • UMB Open Access Articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of UMB Digital ArchiveCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    Real-world study for identifying the predictive factors of surgical intervention and the value of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with low back pain

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Author
    Wang, Hui
    Liu, Chang
    Meng, Zhou
    Zhou, Wenxian
    Chen, Tao
    Zhang, Kai
    Wu, Aimin
    Date
    2022-03-01
    Journal
    Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery
    Publisher
    AME Publishing Company
    Type
    Article
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    See at
    https://doi.org/10.21037/qims-21-584
    Abstract
    Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent disease and can be disabling. Currently, many patients with LBP with or without radiculopathy commonly undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosis and therapeutic assessment, yet the final intervention is mainly centered around nonoperative treatment. This study's aim was to identify the predictive factors of surgical treatment and the value of MRI in patients with LBP with or without radiculopathy. Methods: The study included a training cohort that consisted of 461 patients with MRI from January 2014 to December 2018. Demographic characteristics and MRI findings were collected from our medical records. We developed and validated 2 nomograms to predict the possibility of receiving surgical treatment in LBP patients, based on multivariable logistic regression analysis. The performance of the 2 nomograms was assessed in terms of their calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness. An independent validation cohort containing 163 patients was comparatively analyzed. Results: The baseline model incorporated 6 clinicopathological variables, while the MRI model consisted of 9 variables including several MRI findings. Internal validation revealed the good performance of the 2 nomograms in discrimination and calibration, with a concordance index (C-index) of 0.799 (95% CI: 0.743-0.855) for the baseline model and 0.834 (95% CI: 0.783-0.884) for the MRI model, which showed that the addition of MRI findings to the nomogram failed to achieve better prognostic value (Z statistic =-1.509; P=0.131). Application of the 2 models in the validation cohort also showed good discrimination (baseline model: C-index 0.75, 95% CI: 0.671-0.829; MRI model: C-index 0.777, 95% CI: 0.696-0.857) and calibration. No significant predictive benefit was found in the MRI model in the validation cohort (Z statistic =-0.588; P=0.557). Conclusions: This study showed that clinical demographic characteristics provide good prognostic value to determine whether LBP patients with or without radiculopathy require surgical treatment. The addition of MRI findings yielded no significantly incremental prognostic value.
    Sponsors
    Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province
    Keyword
    Low back pain (LBP)
    Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
    Nomogram
    Prediction
    Identifier to cite or link to this item
    http://hdl.handle.net/10713/17753
    ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
    10.21037/qims-21-584
    Scopus Count
    Collections
    UMB Open Access Articles

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2023)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Policies | Contact Us | UMB Health Sciences & Human Services Library
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.