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 *

261 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30453453)

  • 41. Evaluating the correlation and responsiveness of patient-reported pain with function and quality-of-life outcomes after spine surgery.
    DeVine J; Norvell DC; Ecker E; Fourney DR; Vaccaro A; Wang J; Andersson G
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2011 Oct; 36(21 Suppl):S69-74. PubMed ID: 21897347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. 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]  

  • 44. Measuring surgical outcomes in subaxial degenerative cervical spine disease patients: minimum clinically important difference as a tool for determining meaningful clinical improvement.
    Auffinger B; Lam S; Shen J; Roitberg BZ
    Neurosurgery; 2014 Feb; 74(2):206-13; discussion 213-4. PubMed ID: 24220005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Follow-up score, change score or percentage change score for determining clinical important outcome following surgery? An observational study from the Norwegian registry for Spine surgery evaluating patient reported outcome measures in lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.
    Austevoll IM; Gjestad R; Grotle M; Solberg T; Brox JI; Hermansen E; Rekeland F; Indrekvam K; Storheim K; Hellum C
    BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2019 Jan; 20(1):31. PubMed ID: 30658613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Correlation of 2-year SRS-22r and ODI patient-reported outcomes with 5-year patient-reported outcomes after complex spinal fusion: a 5-year single-institution study of 118 patients.
    Adogwa O; Karikari IO; Elsamadicy AA; Sergesketter AR; Galan D; Bridwell KH
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2018 Oct; 29(4):422-428. PubMed ID: 29979138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Patient-Reported Outcomes and Costs Associated With Revision Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Spine Diseases.
    Kim EJ; Chotai S; Wick JB; Stonko DP; Sivaganesan A; Devin CJ
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2018 Apr; 43(7):E423-E429. PubMed ID: 28767625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Validation of the visual analog scale in the cervical spine.
    MacDowall A; Skeppholm M; Robinson Y; Olerud C
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2018 Mar; 28(3):227-235. PubMed ID: 29243996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Development of a validated computer-based preoperative predictive model for pseudarthrosis with 91% accuracy in 336 adult spinal deformity patients.
    Scheer JK; Oh T; Smith JS; Shaffrey CI; Daniels AH; Sciubba DM; Hamilton DK; Protopsaltis TS; Passias PG; Hart RA; Burton DC; Bess S; Lafage R; Lafage V; Schwab F; Klineberg EO; Ames CP;
    Neurosurg Focus; 2018 Nov; 45(5):E11. PubMed ID: 30453452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Effect of patients' functional status on satisfaction with outcomes 12 months after elective spine surgery for lumbar degenerative disease.
    Chotai S; Devin CJ; Archer KR; Bydon M; McGirt MJ; Nian H; Harrell FE; Dittus RS; Asher AL;
    Spine J; 2017 Dec; 17(12):1783-1793. PubMed ID: 28970074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of cervical spine surgery in registry efforts: determining the most valid and responsive instruments.
    Godil SS; Parker SL; Zuckerman SL; Mendenhall SK; McGirt MJ
    Spine J; 2015 Jun; 15(6):1203-9. PubMed ID: 24076442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. Hospital and Surgeon Variation in Patient-reported Functional Outcomes After Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Statewide Evaluation.
    Khor S; Lavallee DC; Cizik AM; Bellabarba C; Dagal A; Hart RA; Howe CR; Martz RD; Shonnard N; Flum DR
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2020 Apr; 45(7):465-472. PubMed ID: 31842110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Criteria for failure and worsening after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter observational study based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.
    Werner DAT; Grotle M; Gulati S; Austevoll IM; Lønne G; Nygaard ØP; Solberg TK
    Eur Spine J; 2017 Oct; 26(10):2650-2659. PubMed ID: 28616747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. 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]  

  • 56. Can We Assess the Success of Surgery for Degenerative Spinal Diseases Using Patients' Recall of Their Preoperative Status?
    Rodrigues R; Silva PS; Cunha M; Vaz R; Pereira P
    World Neurosurg; 2018 Jul; 115():e768-e773. PubMed ID: 29729475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments in Spine Surgery.
    Guzman JZ; Cutler HS; Connolly J; Skovrlj B; Mroz TE; Riew KD; Cho SK
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2016 Mar; 41(5):429-37. PubMed ID: 26571179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Risk Factors Associated With Failure to Reach Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Patient-reported Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Spondylolisthesis.
    Hijji FY; Narain AS; Bohl DD; Yom KH; Kudaravalli KT; Lopez GD; Singh K
    Clin Spine Surg; 2018 Feb; 31(1):E92-E97. PubMed ID: 28538082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. 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]  

  • 60.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.