These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

1210 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21332281)

  • 1. Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
    Parker SL; Adogwa O; Paul AR; Anderson WN; Aaronson O; Cheng JS; McGirt MJ
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2011 May; 14(5):598-604. PubMed ID: 21332281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease.
    Parker SL; Mendenhall SK; Shau D; Adogwa O; Cheng JS; Anderson WN; Devin CJ; McGirt MJ
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2012 Jan; 16(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 21962034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Defining the minimum clinically important difference for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: insights from the Quality Outcomes Database.
    Asher AL; Kerezoudis P; Mummaneni PV; Bisson EF; Glassman SD; Foley KT; Slotkin JR; Potts EA; Shaffrey ME; Shaffrey CI; Coric D; Knightly JJ; Park P; Fu KM; Devin CJ; Archer KR; Chotai S; Chan AK; Virk MS; Bydon M
    Neurosurg Focus; 2018 Jan; 44(1):E2. PubMed ID: 29290132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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.
    Parker SL; Mendenhall SK; Shau DN; Adogwa O; Anderson WN; Devin CJ; McGirt MJ
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2012 May; 16(5):471-8. PubMed ID: 22324801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article.
    Parker SL; Godil SS; Shau DN; Mendenhall SK; McGirt MJ
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2013 Feb; 18(2):154-60. PubMed ID: 23176164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Determination of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in pain, disability, and quality of life after revision fusion for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis.
    Parker SL; Adogwa O; Mendenhall SK; Shau DN; Anderson WN; Cheng JS; Devin CJ; McGirt MJ
    Spine J; 2012 Dec; 12(12):1122-8. PubMed ID: 23158968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Determination of the minimum improvement in pain, disability, and health state associated with cost-effectiveness: introduction of the concept of minimum cost-effective difference.
    Parker SL; McGirt MJ
    Neurosurgery; 2012 Dec; 71(6):1149-55. PubMed ID: 22986596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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.
    Copay AG; Glassman SD; Subach BR; Berven S; Schuler TC; Carreon LY
    Spine J; 2008; 8(6):968-74. PubMed ID: 18201937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Do measures of surgical effectiveness at 1 year after lumbar spine surgery accurately predict 2-year outcomes?
    Adogwa O; Elsamadicy AA; Han JL; Cheng J; Karikari I; Bagley CA
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2016 Dec; 25(6):689-696. PubMed ID: 26722957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Modeled cost-effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion compared with posterolateral fusion for spondylolisthesis using N(2)QOD data.
    Carreon LY; Glassman SD; Ghogawala Z; Mummaneni PV; McGirt MJ; Asher AL
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2016 Jun; 24(6):916-21. PubMed ID: 26895529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effect of complications within 90 days on patient-reported outcomes 3 months and 12 months following elective surgery for lumbar degenerative disease.
    Chotai S; Parker SL; Sivaganesan A; Sielatycki JA; Asher AL; McGirt MJ; Devin CJ
    Neurosurg Focus; 2015 Dec; 39(6):E8. PubMed ID: 26621422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A prospective, multi-institutional comparative effectiveness study of lumbar spine surgery in morbidly obese patients: does minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion result in superior outcomes?
    Adogwa O; Carr K; Thompson P; Hoang K; Darlington T; Perez E; Fatemi P; Gottfried O; Cheng J; Isaacs RE
    World Neurosurg; 2015 May; 83(5):860-6. PubMed ID: 25535070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Revisions for screw malposition and clinical outcomes after robot-guided lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis.
    Schröder ML; Staartjes VE
    Neurosurg Focus; 2017 May; 42(5):E12. PubMed ID: 28463610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Determination of the minimum improvement in pain, disability, and health state associated with cost-effectiveness: introduction of the concept of minimum cost-effective difference.
    Parker SL; McGirt MJ
    Neurosurgery; 2015 Mar; 76 Suppl 1():S64-70. PubMed ID: 25692370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Prediction model for outcome after low-back surgery: individualized likelihood of complication, hospital readmission, return to work, and 12-month improvement in functional disability.
    McGirt MJ; Sivaganesan A; Asher AL; Devin CJ
    Neurosurg Focus; 2015 Dec; 39(6):E13. PubMed ID: 26621411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis: 5-year follow-up from the prospective multicenter Quality Outcomes Database registry.
    Chan AK; Bydon M; Bisson EF; Glassman SD; Foley KT; Shaffrey CI; Potts EA; Shaffrey ME; Coric D; Knightly JJ; Park P; Wang MY; Fu KM; Slotkin JR; Asher AL; Virk MS; Michalopoulos GD; Guan J; Haid RW; Agarwal N; Park C; Chou D; Mummaneni PV
    Neurosurg Focus; 2023 Jan; 54(1):E2. PubMed ID: 36587409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Usefulness of minimum clinically important difference for assessing patients with subaxial degenerative cervical spine disease: statistical versus substantial clinical benefit.
    Auffinger B; Lam S; Shen J; Thaci B; Roitberg BZ
    Acta Neurochir (Wien); 2013 Dec; 155(12):2345-54; discussion 2355. PubMed ID: 24136679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Is the Oswestry Disability Index a valid measure of response to sacroiliac joint treatment?
    Copay AG; Cher DJ
    Qual Life Res; 2016 Feb; 25(2):283-292. PubMed ID: 26245709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinically important deterioration in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery: a choice of evaluation methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and pain scales: clinical article.
    Gum JL; Glassman SD; Carreon LY
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2013 Nov; 19(5):564-8. PubMed ID: 24010900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Minimally invasive versus open fusion for Grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database.
    Mummaneni PV; Bisson EF; Kerezoudis P; Glassman S; Foley K; Slotkin JR; Potts E; Shaffrey M; Shaffrey CI; Coric D; Knightly J; Park P; Fu KM; Devin CJ; Chotai S; Chan AK; Virk M; Asher AL; Bydon M
    Neurosurg Focus; 2017 Aug; 43(2):E11. PubMed ID: 28760035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 61.