ObjectivesTo evaluate the measurement properties of outcome measures currently used in the assessment of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) for clinical research.DesignSystematic reviewData sourcesMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through 4 August 2020.Eligibility criteriaPrimary clinical research published in English and whose primary purpose was to evaluate the measurement properties or clinically important differences of instruments used in DCM.Data extraction and synthesisPsychometric properties and clinically important differences were both extracted from each study, assessed for risk of bias and presented in accordance with the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments criteria.ResultsTwenty-nine outcome instruments were identified from 52 studies published between 1999 and 2020. They measured neuromuscular function (16 instruments), life impact (five instruments), pain (five instruments) and radiological scoring (five instruments). No instrument had evaluations for all 10 measurement properties and <50% had assessments for all three domains (ie, reliability, validity and responsiveness). There was a paucity of high-quality evidence. Notably, there were no studies that reported on structural validity and no high-quality evidence that discussed content validity. In this context, we identified nine instruments that are interpretable by clinicians: the arm and neck pain scores; the 12-item and 36-item short form health surveys; the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, modified JOA and JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire; the neck disability index; and the visual analogue scale for pain. These include six scores with barriers to application and one score with insufficient criterion and construct validity.ConclusionsThis review aggregates studies evaluating outcome measures used to assess patients with DCM. Overall, there is a need for a set of agreed tools to measure outcomes in DCM. These findings will be used to inform the development of a core measurement set as part of AO Spine RECODE-DCM.

Study design Narrative Review. Objective To (i) discuss why assessment and monitoring of disease progression is critical in Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM); (ii) outline the important features of an ideal assessment tool and (iii) discuss current and novel strategies for detecting subtle deterioration in DCM. Methods Literature review Results Degenerative cervical myelopathy is an overarching term used to describe progressive injury to the cervical spinal cord by age-related changes of the spinal axis. Based on a study by Smith et al (2020), the prevalence of DCM is approximately 2.3% and is expected to rise as the global population ages. Given the global impact of this disease, it is essential to address important knowledge gaps and prioritize areas for future investigation. As part of the AO Spine RECODE-DCM (Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy) project, a priority setting partnership was initiated to increase research efficiency by identifying the top ten research priorities for DCM. One of the top ten priorities for future DCM research was: What assessment tools can be used to evaluate functional impairment, disability and quality of life in people with DCM? What instruments, tools or methods can be used or developed to monitor people with DCM for disease progression or improvement either before or after surgical treatment? Conclusions With the increasing prevalence of DCM, effective surveillance of this population will require both the implementation of a monitoring framework as well as the development of new assessment tools.

IntroductionProgress in degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is hindered by inconsistent measurement and reporting. This impedes data aggregation and outcome comparison across studies. This limitation can be reversed by developing a core measurement set (CMS) for DCM research. Previously, the AO Spine Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for DCM (AO Spine RECODE-DCM) defined ‘what’ should be measured in DCM: the next step of this initiative is to determine ‘how’ to measure these features. This protocol outlines the steps necessary for the development of a CMS for DCM research and audit.Methods and analysisThe CMS will be developed in accordance with the guidance developed by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials and the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments. The process involves five phases. In phase 1, the steering committee agreed on the constructs to be measured by sourcing consensus definitions from patients, professionals and the literature. In phases 2 and 3, systematic reviews were conducted to identify tools for each construct and aggregate their evidence. Constructs with and without tools were identified, and scoping reviews were conducted for constructs without tools. Evidence on measurement properties, as well as on timing of assessments, are currently being aggregated. These will be presented in phase 4: a consensus meeting where a multi-disciplinary panel of experts will select the instruments that will form the CMS. Following selection, guidance on the implementation of the CMS will be developed and disseminated (phase 5). A preliminary CMS review scheduled at 4 years from release.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the University of Cambridge (HBREC2019.14). Dissemination strategies will include peer-reviewed scientific publications; conference presentations; podcasts; the identification of AO Spine RECODE-DCM ambassadors; and engagement with relevant journals, funders and the DCM community.

Stress and sleep are tightly regulated as a result of the substantial overlap in neurotransmitter signaling and regulatory pathways between the neural centers that modulate mood and sleep-wake cycle. The chronicity of the stressor and variability in coping with it are major determinants of the psychiatric outcomes and subsequent effect on sleep. The regulation of sleep is mediated by the interaction of a homeostatic and a circadian process according to the two-process model. Chronic stress induces stress-related disorders which are associated with deficient sleep homeostasis. However, little is known about how chronic stress affects sleep homeostasis and whether the differences in adaptation to stress distinctively influence sleep. Therefore, we assessed sleep homeostasis in C57BL6/J mice following exposure to 15-d of chronic social defeat stress. We implemented wake:sleep ratio as a behavioral correlate of sleep pressure. Both stress-resilient and stress-susceptible mice displayed deficient sleep homeostasis in post-stress baseline sleep. This was due to poor temporal correlation between frontal slow wave activity (SWA) power and sleep pressure in the dark/active phase. Moreover, the buildup rate of sleep pressure in the dark was lower in susceptible mice in comparison to stress-naïve mice. Additionally, 4-h SD in the dark caused a deficient sleep recovery response in susceptible mice characterized by non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep loss. Our findings provide evidence of deficient homeostatic sleep process (S) in baseline sleep in stress-exposed mice, while impaired sleep recovery following a mild enforced wakefulness experienced during the dark was only detected in stress-susceptible mice. This alludes to the differential homeostatic adaptation to stress between susceptible and resilient mice and its effect on sleep regulation.

IntroductionProgress in degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is hindered by inconsistent measurement and reporting of outcomes. This can, for example, impede the aggregation of data and comparison of outcomes between studies. This limitation can be reversed by developing a core measurement set (CMS) for use in DCM research. Previously, the AO Spine Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for DCM (AO Spine RECODE-DCM) defined ‘what’ should be measured in DCM: specifically, the core data elements and core outcome set of the disease. The next step of this initiative is to determine ‘how’ to measure these features. The current protocol outlines the steps necessary for the development of a CMS for DCM research and audit.Methods and analysisThe CMS will be developed in accordance with the guidance developed by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). The process will involve five phases: (1) agreement on the measurement constructs and approaches to their evaluation; (2) the formation of a long list of potential measurement instruments, by identifying existing instruments and assessing their psychometric properties; (3) the aggregation of evidence concerning ‘when’ measurements should be taken; (4) consensus about which instruments to include in the CMS; and (5) implementation.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the University of Cambridge. Dissemination strategies to promote awareness and adoption of the CMS include peer-reviewed scientific publications; conference presentations; podcasts; the identification of AO Spine RECODE-DCM ambassadors; and engagement with relevant journals, funders, and the DCM community.Impact of this workThe proposed project will enable standardised and comprehensive measurement in DCM clinical trials. The CMS will be established using a robust, global, and multi-stakeholder consensus process, with broad representation of healthcare professionals and individuals living with the disease. It will focus on measurement instruments currently in use. This ensures that the CMS will be immediately usable and suited for widespread adoption. The development of better outcome instruments in DCM remains a top 10 research priority and this work will hence facilitate knowledge generation for this important disease.