↓ Skip to main content

Prediction of Postoperative Clinical Recovery of Drop Foot Attributable to Lumbar Degenerative Diseases, via a Bayesian Network

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Prediction of Postoperative Clinical Recovery of Drop Foot Attributable to Lumbar Degenerative Diseases, via a Bayesian Network
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-5180-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shota Takenaka, Hiroyuki Aono

Abstract

Drop foot resulting from degenerative lumbar diseases can impair activities of daily living. Therefore, predictors of recovery of this symptom have been investigated using univariate or/and multivariate analyses. However, the conclusions have been somewhat controversial. Bayesian network models, which are graphic and intuitive to the clinician, may facilitate understanding of the prognosis of drop foot resulting from degenerative lumbar diseases. (1) To show a layered correlation among predictors of recovery from drop foot resulting from degenerative lumbar diseases; and (2) to develop support tools for clinical decisions to treat drop foot resulting from lumbar degenerative diseases. Between 1993 and 2013, we treated 141 patients with decompressive lumbar spine surgery who presented with drop foot attributable to degenerative diseases. Of those, 102 (72%) were included in this retrospective study because they had drop foot of recent development and had no diseases develop that affect evaluation of drop foot after surgery. Specifically, 28 (20%) patients could not be analyzed because their records were not available at a minimum of 2 years followup after surgery and 11 (8%) were lost owing to postoperative conditions that affect the muscle strength evaluation. Eight candidate variables were sex, age, herniated soft disc, duration of the neurologic injury (duration), preoperative tibialis anterior muscle strength (pretibialis anterior), leg pain, cauda equina syndrome, and number of involved levels. Manual muscle testing was used to assess the tibialis anterior muscle strength. Drop foot was defined as a tibialis anterior muscle strength score of less than 3 of 5 (5 = movement against gravity and full resistance, 4 = movement against gravity and moderate resistance, 3 = movement against gravity through full ROM, 3- = movement against gravity through partial ROM, 2 = movement with gravity eliminated through full ROM, 1 = slight contraction but no movement, and 0 = no contraction). The two outcomes of interest were postoperative tibialis anterior muscle strength (posttibialis anterior) of 3 or greater and posttibialis anterior strength of 4 or greater at 2 years after surgery. We developed two separate Bayesian network models with outcomes of interest for posttibialis anterior strength of 3 or greater and posttibialis anterior strength of 4 or greater. The two outcomes correspond to "good" and "excellent" results based on previous reports, respectively. Direct predictors are defined as variables that have the tail of the arrow connecting the outcome of interest, whereas indirect predictors are defined as variables that have the tail of the arrow connecting either direct predictors or other indirect predictors that have the tail of the arrow connecting direct predictors. Sevenfold cross validation and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to evaluate the accuracy and robustness of the Bayesian network models. Both of our Bayesian network models showed that weaker muscle power before surgery (pretibialis anterior ≤ 1) and longer duration of neurologic injury before treatment (> 30 days) were associated with a decreased likelihood of return of function by 2 years. The models for posttibialis anterior muscle strength of 3 or greater and posttibialis anterior muscle strength of 4 or greater were the same in terms of the graphs, showing that the two direct predictors were pretibialis anterior muscle strength (score ≤ 1 or ≥ 2) and duration (≤ 30 days or > 30 days). Age, herniated soft disc, and leg pain were identified as indirect predictors. We developed a decision-support tool in which the clinician can enter pretibialis anterior muscle strength and duration, and from this obtain the probability estimates of posttibialis anterior muscle strength. The probability estimates of posttibialis anterior muscle strength of 3 or greater and posttibialis anterior muscle strength of 4 or greater were 94% and 85%, respectively, in the most-favorable conditions (pretibialis anterior ≥ 2; duration ≤ 30 days) and 18% and 14%, respectively, in the least-favorable conditions (pretibialis anterior ≤ 1; duration > 30 days). On the sevenfold cross validation, the area under the ROC curve yielded means of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.64-0.84) for posttibialis anterior muscle strength of 3 or greater and posttibialis anterior muscle strength of 4 or greater, respectively. The results of this study suggest that the clinician can understand intuitively the layered correlation among predictors by Bayesian network models. Based on the models, the decision-support tool successfully provided the probability estimates of posttibialis anterior muscle strength to treat drop foot attributable to lumbar degenerative diseases. These models were shown to be robust on the internal validation but should be externally validated in other populations. Level III, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Unspecified 9 9%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Master 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 22 23%
Unknown 30 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 25%
Unspecified 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 34 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 December 2016.
All research outputs
#17,302,400
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#5,587
of 7,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,579
of 416,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#59
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 416,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.