Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations.

By C. Bombardier. Spine, 2000

706 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Pharmacology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/88fb42bb143e5faf6932f92286bc1cbb35d3bfa6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Lex M. Bouter
2. Gordon Waddell
3. B. Manna
4. R. Deyo
5. Peter Croft
6. S. Min Lai
7. M. Asher
8. D. Burton

In Pathology and Forensic Medicine

1. Gordon Waddell
2. B. Manna
3. Lex M. Bouter
4. R. Deyo
5. Peter Croft
6. S. Min Lai
7. M. Asher
8. D. Burton

In Pharmacology

1. Lex M. Bouter
2. Gordon Waddell
3. B. Manna
4. R. Deyo
5. Peter Croft
6. S. Min Lai
7. M. Asher
8. D. Burton

Citations in the corpus

• The Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire for Idiopathic Scoliosis (2003, methodology): “The SF-36 questionnaire is probably the most widely utilized and validated HRQL questionnaire.(8,16,21,22) It has been used in a number of outcome studies for spine patients in general(2,6,7,11,12) and scoliosis patients in particular.”
• Interpreting Change Scores for Pain and Functional Status in Low Back Pain: Towards International Consensus Regarding Minimal Important Change (2008, methodology): “They suggested 5 domains: pain, back specific function, work disability,generic health status, and patient satisfaction.(2) This article focuses on what are arguably the 2 most fundamental clinical outcomes: pain and back specific function.”