Abstract
Background Guidelines recommend surgery for moderate and severe cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) but support either surgery or nonoperative care for mild disease. How patients weigh the adverse events associated with each pathway is not well characterized.
Methods We conducted a three-arm randomized vignette experiment among United States adults aged 40 years and older recruited through an online research panel. All participants read an identical description of mild CSM and were randomized to one of three scenarios: surgery that improved symptoms, surgery that halted progression without improvement, or nonoperative management with symptom progression. Participants in the surgical scenarios rated 12 possible complications and those in the nonoperative scenario rated 8 progression outcomes. For each item, participants rated how strongly it would influence their decision (0-10) and whether they would still choose the same treatment. Items for which participants would no longer choose the same treatment were termed dominant decision factors.
Results Of 276 respondents, 263 (95.2%) were analyzed. Dominant factor rates ranged from 13.5% to 87.8% across complications. Complications described as persisting at one year produced substantially higher rates than the same complications described as resolving by three months. Adverse events more frequently constituted dominant factors when surgery was framed as offering less benefit, although differences between scenarios were not statistically significant. In the nonoperative scenario, worsening bladder control (56.6%) and neck pain interfering with sleep (53.0%) were the strongest influences, exceeding needing a cane to walk (32.1%).
Conclusions Treatment decisions for mild CSM are driven primarily by the expected permanence of adverse events and their anticipated impact on daily quality of life, rather than by conventional neurological metrics or surgical benefit framing.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The protocol was approved as exempt research by the Washington University in St. Louis Human Research Protection Office (IRB #202511100).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
