Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Mar 31;18(3):e0281856. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281856

Targeting earlier diagnosis: What symptoms come first in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy?

Colin F Munro 1, Ratko Yurac 2,3, Zipser Carl Moritz 4, Michael G Fehlings 5,6,7, Ricardo Rodrigues-Pinto 8,9, James Milligan 10, Konstantinos Margetis 11,12, Mark R N Kotter 1,13, Benjamin M Davies 1,13,14,*
Editor: Andrea Martinuzzi15
PMCID: PMC10065274  PMID: 37000805

Abstract

Background

Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition. Early effective treatment is limited by late diagnosis. Conventional descriptions of DCM focus on motor and sensory limb disability, however, recent work suggests the true impact is much broader. This study aimed to characterise the symptomatic presentation of DCM from the perspective of people with DCM and determine whether any of the reported symptoms, or groups of symptoms, were associated with early diagnosis.

Methods

An internet survey was developed, using an established list of patient-reported effects. Participants (N = 171) were recruited from an online community of people with DCM. Respondents selected their current symptoms and primary presenting symptom. The relationship of symptoms and their relationship to time to diagnosis were explored. This included symptoms not commonly measured today, termed ‘non-conventional’ symptoms.

Results

All listed symptoms were experienced by >10% of respondents, with poor balance being the most commonly reported (84.2%). Non-conventional symptoms accounted for 39.7% of symptomatic burden. 55.4% of the symptoms were reported as an initial symptom, with neck pain the most common (13.5%). Non-conventional symptoms accounted for 11.1% of initial symptoms. 79.5% of the respondents were diagnosed late (>6 months). Heavy legs was the only initial symptom associated with early diagnosis.

Conclusions

A comprehensive description of the self-reported effects of DCM has been established, including the prevalence of symptoms at disease presentation. The experience of DCM is broader than suggested by conventional descriptions and further exploration of non-conventional symptoms may support earlier diagnosis.

Introduction

Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (DCM) is a progressive condition that occurs when the cervical spinal cord is compressed by degenerative changes in surrounding structures [1].

DCM treatment is largely restricted to surgery that aims to alleviate compression of the spinal cord. Recent large prospective studies have demonstrated surgery is able to stop disease progression and offer a meaningful, albeit incomplete recovery [2, 3]. The amount of recovery is hypothesized to be dependent on the severity of existing damage. Consequently, time to treatment has emerged as an important predictor of treatment response [4], with the latest analysis indicating a preoperative duration of symptoms less than 4 months offers the most favourable outcome [5].

Whilst not applicable to the full spectrum of DCM, with mild forms of the disease amenable to a watch and wait approach [6], for those requiring treatment any such prompt intervention target is currently undeliverable. This is due to long delays in diagnosis, on average 2–5 years [7, 8]. This is contributing to the significant residual disability in DCM, with dependence and unemployment prevalent [9] and enabling timely treatment underpins many of the top research priorities identified by AO Spine RECODE-DCM [10].

Consequently, improving time to diagnosis is an attractive target for improving outcomes immediately in DCM. However, the factors driving missed and delayed diagnosis are poorly characterised at present and difficult to investigate. Whilst a poor awareness and understanding of the disease are undoubtedly factors [1, 11], the information required to support early diagnosis, including knowledge of the early symptoms, or the key differentials or at risk populations, is yet to be established.

Conventional descriptions of DCM have focused on motor and sensory disability to the limbs [12, 13]. This is reflected in the assessment of DCM for clinical research [14] and clinical care [15]. However, we have recently developed a long-list of patient reported symptoms in DCM [16], which broadens the potential impact of DCM. This is also a unique dataset as outcomes are based on the patient’s own wording.

This study aimed to characterise the symptomatic presentation of DCM from the perspective of people with cervical myelopathy [17] and determine whether any of the reported symptoms, or groups of symptoms, were associated with early diagnosis.

Methods

This study aimed to determine which of the patient reported symptoms in DCM were associated with earlier diagnosis. The study used a long-list of patient reported outcomes, previously established [16]. This study was conducted with ethical approval from the University of Cambridge. It is reported in accordance with the recommendations for Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) [18] and Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) [19].

Survey design

An internet survey was developed using SurveyMonkey (California, USA), using a comprehensive list of patient reported effects of DCM, previously established [16, 20]. In brief, this process had used semi-structured interviews with people with DCM (N = 5) and carers (N = 3) to identify effects of DCM [20]. These effects were then presented to a separate and larger cohort of sufferers via an initial internet survey (N = 224) (S1 Appendix). The survey was advertised via Myelopathy.org, an international charity for people with DCM. Respondents were asked to confirm whether they suffered from 36 shortlisted outcomes, but also given the opportunity to submit additional suggestions (S1 Table). These were then processed by investigators to produce a ‘longlist’ of 56 patient outcomes (S1 Table) [16]. Outcomes were generated based directly on sufferers’ wording and goes beyond the common and existing descriptions of DCM, which are the focus of current myelopathy assessment [14].

The final survey was formed of three sections. Initially participants were provided with an overview of the study and definition of DCM. By continuing into the survey, participants were confirming their diagnosis of DCM and providing informed consent to participate. Respondents were asked a series of sampling questions, including age, gender, length of time between symptom onset and diagnosis, length of time lived with DCM, history of surgical treatment and disease severity as measured using the p-mJOA (patient derived modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association) score. The mJOA is the international standard for assessment of disease severity [6, 13], and the p-mJOA a validated patient reported version [21]. Finally, the list of 56 patient reported outcomes were incorporated into a matrix, with respondents asked: “What symptoms do you currently experience due to DCM?” and “Which of these was the first symptom you experienced as a result of DCM?”. For this latter question, only one symptom could be selected. If they experienced more than one symptom initially and could not remember which came first, they were asked to select the most significant one at the time. The survey consisted of 16 questions over 10 pages (S2 Appendix).

Participation was voluntary and advertised using Myelopathy.org, an international non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting understanding and awareness of DCM, to help people with DCM, professionals and supporters. Participants from the previous (first-round) internet survey were invited by email to participate in this follow-up survey. Surveys could not be edited once they had been completed. No incentives were offered for completion of the surveys.

IP addresses were screened to identify potential duplicate responses. If multiple entries from the same IP address were discovered, only one response was included, unless the responses gave different email addresses or had significantly different demographic data (age and sex), in which case it was assumed to be a separate individual on the same device. The more completed response of the duplicates was included, if both were equally complete, the response with the earliest end date and time was included.

Analysis

JASP software (Version 0.13.1) was used for statistical analysis. The Shapiro-Wilks test was used to assess for parametric distribution of numerical data sets. The Mann-Whitney U test was then used to compare the means of two non-parametric distributions whilst a Two Tailed T-test used to compare the means of two parametric distributions. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the means of 3 or more parametric distributions, whilst the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the means of 3 or more non-parametric distributions. Chi-Square test for association was used to assess the relation between categorical variables. A result was taken as significant when p<0.05.

Odds ratios, and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals, were used to assess the association between the presence of an initial symptom and early or late diagnosis, with a confidence interval not encompassing 1 taken as a significant result.

Only complete surveys were used for data analysis. Surveys were categorised as incomplete (no questions answered after respondent confirmed they had DCM), partially complete (respondent only answered demographics questions) or fully complete (respondent answered all questions). The demographic characteristics of partially complete and fully complete responses were compared in order to evaluate the potential impact of missing data. Demographic characteristics were also compared to the previous round.

In order to assess the representation of DCM amongst the recruited cohort, current symptoms were matched to those recorded in the AO Spine prospective observational study (N = 679) of sufferers undergoing surgery, and their prevalence compared (S2 Table and S1 Fig).

Early diagnosis was defined as <6 months from the onset of symptoms, and late diagnosis >6 months. This is based upon analysis showing treatment within 6 months is associated with improved outcomes [4, 22].

To evaluate the impact of symptoms less commonly acknowledged professionally with DCM, patient reported outcomes were divided into either ‘conventional’ or ‘non-conventional’ symptoms based on their acknowledgement or not within DCM review articles [12]. To evaluate the impact of key areas of effect, conventional symptoms were further subdivided into motor, sensory, pain and autonomic categories. The motor and sensory categories were then subdivided anatomically into upper and lower limb groups. This was based on the structure of the m/JOA assessment, the current gold-standard assessment for DCM [6, 13]. The non-conventional group was sub-divided into: sensation/pain, movement disorder, gastro-intestinal, respiratory, cranial and psychosocial. This grouping was agreed by the authors, based on common systems. The final classification is split between Tables 1 and 2, showing conventional and non-conventional symptoms respectively.

Table 1. Survey symptom classification–conventional symptoms.

Conventional
Motor Sensory Pain Autonomic
LL Motor UL Motor UL Sensory LL Sensory
Poor balance* Clumsiness* Pins and needles in your hand* Leg numbness* Neck pain* Difficulty emptying bladder*
Lack of control of legs* Reduced dexterity* Lhermitte’s phenomena* Pins and needles in your leg* Shoulder pain* Faecal incontinence
Leg stiffness* Reduced grip strength* Hand numbness* Neck stiffness* Urinary incontinence
Heavy legs* Arm stiffness* Arm numbness* Neck clicking* Waking to go to the toilet
Dragging legs* Pins and needles in your arm* Back pain* Erectile Dysfunction
Falls* Arm pain*
Allodynia
Leg pain

*Symptoms that were reported as initial symptoms.

Table 2. Survey symptom classification–non-conventional symptoms.

Non-Conventional
Sensation / Pain Movement Disorder Gastro-Intestinal Respiratory Cranial Psychosocial
Altered temperature sensation* Leg shaking* Choking/swallowing problems* Exertional breathlessness Dizziness* Symptom variability day by day
Female sexual dysfunction Muscle spasms or twitches (arms)* Constipation Difficulty breathing when lying flat Headache* Impaired cognition
Hot flushes and/or sweating Hand shaking* Nausea and vomiting Tinnitus Anxiety
Abdominal pain Muscle spasms or twitches (legs) Eyesight problems Fatigue
Face pain Face numbness Insomnia
Symptom variability hour by hour
Depression/low mood

*Symptoms that were reported as initial symptoms.

Results

Overall, 189 unique individuals accessed this survey. This included 78 respondents who had participated in the previous project (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Flowchart of the study design.

Fig 1

The findings from previous semi-structured (Round 1) interviews [20] and paired internet survey (Round 2) [16], were used to produce this survey (Round 3).

Demographic information was not significantly different between complete and partially complete responses. Overall, survey respondents matched those of the previous round, with the exception of surgical history: Respondents of round 3 were more likely to have had surgery for their DCM (p = 0.04) (Table 3).

Table 3. Comparison of demographics of survey respondents in round 2 and round 3.

Respondent Demographics: Round 2 (N = 224): Round 3 (N = 171): P value
Mean age (years) 56.6 53.9 0.63
Female/Male (%) 75.9/24.1 73.9/26.3 0.62
Surgery/No Surgery (%) 62.1/38.0 71.9/28.1 0.04*
Mean time to diagnosis (years) 4.9 3.9 0.23
Early/Late Diagnosis (%) 21.0/79.0 20.5/79.5 0.90
Mean length of time with DCM (years) 8.2 6.8 0.43
Mean total mJOA 11.6 11.5 0.93
Mean upper limb motor mJOA 3.6 3.6 0.99
Mean lower limb motor mJOA 4.3 4.2 0.67
Mean upper limb sensory mJOA 1.7 1.7 0.50
Mean sphincter dysfunction mJOA 2.1 2.1 0.93

Except for surgical history, there were no significant difference between cohorts.

*<0.05

Current symptoms

All symptoms were currently experienced by at least 10% of respondents, with each respondent on average experiencing 27 different symptoms. The most commonly reported individual symptoms were poor balance (84.2%), clumsiness (80.7%), neck stiffness (78.4%), reduced grip strength (76.6%), and hand numbness (75.4%) (Fig 2). Current symptom burden closely matched that experienced by sufferers participating in the AO Spine prospective observational study (S1 Fig).

Fig 2. Bar chart of the prevalence of symptoms.

Fig 2

The number of respondents reporting each symptom are displayed at the end of the bar.

The proportion of all reported symptoms attributable to each symptom group is shown in Fig 3. Conventional symptoms account for 60.3% of symptomatic burden and non-conventional symptoms account for 39.7%.

Fig 3. Pie chart illustrating the proportion of overall symptoms reported that were attributable to each symptom category.

Fig 3

Conventional symptom segments are illustrated with lines and non-conventional symptom segments with dots.

Initial symptoms

Of the 56 listed symptoms, 31 (55.4%) were reported as an initial symptom. The most commonly reported individual initial symptoms were: neck pain (13.5%), shoulder pain (8.8%), pins and needles in the hand (7.0%), arm pain (5.3%) and Lhermitte’s phenomena (5.3%) (Fig 4). The percentage of respondents with an initial symptom from each symptom category is shown in Fig 5. Conventional symptoms account for 88.9% of initial symptoms and non-conventional symptoms account for 11.1%.

Fig 4. Bar chart of the prevalence of initial symptoms.

Fig 4

The number of respondents reporting each initial symptom are displayed at the end of the bar.

Fig 5. Pie chart illustrating the proportion of initial symptoms that were attributable to each symptom category.

Fig 5

Conventional symptom segments are illustrated with lines and non-conventional symptom segments with dots. Categories with N ≤ 1 have been left out for the purposes of clear illustration.

Association between initial symptoms and time to diagnosis

The mean time to diagnosis was 46.4 months, with 20.5% (35/171) diagnosed early (within 6 months) and 79.5% (136/171) diagnosed late (after 6 months).

Fig 6 shows the association between individual, initial symptoms and the likelihood of an early or late diagnosis. Heavy legs was the only symptom significantly associated with early diagnosis (95% Confidence Interval <1). No initial symptoms were significantly associated with late diagnosis.

Fig 6. Odds of early diagnosis using individual symptoms.

Fig 6

A forest plot of individual odds ratios for each initial symptom. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals of the odds ratio.

Initial symptoms were categorised into the predefined symptom domains. Fig 7 shows their association with early or late diagnosis. No initial symptom group significantly favoured an early or late diagnosis, although there was a trend for non-conventional cranial symptoms to be associated with a late diagnosis.

Fig 7. Odds of early diagnosis using symptom categories.

Fig 7

A forest plot of individual odds ratios for each symptom category. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals of the odds ratio. Categories with N ≤ 1 have been left out for the purposes of clear illustration.

Discussion

This is the first study to explore the patient reported experience of DCM at presentation. The findings of this survey indicate that patients experience a far greater breadth of symptoms than are commonly considered in textbooks [12], or evaluated in clinical research [14, 22] or clinical care [15]. Whilst this study indicates that a sub-selection may be particularly relevant for detection, they remain diverse and non-specific. Only ‘heavy legs’ appeared specific for early diagnosis.

Limitations

The findings of this study must be considered in the context of its methodology. As an open, internet recruited survey of self-selected people with DCM, reporting their retrospective experience, the results are at risk of sampling and recall bias. That said, a number of design factors and findings are reassuring that this is unlikely to be significant.

Firstly, internet surveys are increasingly recognised as an effective means of reaching representative samples of a disease [2326]. For example, they are the mainstay of core-outcome set initiatives to define symptom burden and a recent exercise in inflammatory bowel disease, using cross-validation with an individual’s health records, found self-reporting is accurate [27]. Further, in our survey participants were presented with a description of DCM, and asked to confirm their diagnosis, making it unlikely people without a diagnosis of DCM participated.

Secondly, the disease characteristics of participants, including symptom profiles, matched those identified within the high-quality AO Spine observational studies [5] (S1 Fig). Further, whilst respondents were more likely to be female, as has been the case with previous surveys using Myelopathy.org, a DCM charity [9, 16], the cohort demographics also matched the clinical series [5] (S2 Table). This inconsistency is thought to reflect the increased participation of women in online health-communities [28].

Traditionally a DELPHI process will recruit respondents only once, inviting and measuring dropout for each consecutive round. As an additional adjunct, the third-round survey was an open survey to improve the response rate. However, the consistent sampling demographics provide some reassurance that this is unlikely to have influenced the findings.

Due to the very varied nature of DCM presentation, the absolute numbers of respondents presenting with any one symptom at presentation was often small. This likely resulted in the study being underpowered to find significant associations between initial symptoms and early or late diagnosis. It was therefore also felt unsuitable to explore with modelling. Thus, one needs to be careful to avoid a Type II error in concluding that, with the exception of heavy legs, no initial symptoms are associated with either early or late diagnosis.

Interpretation

Pain and upper limb sensory symptoms predominate initially

Whilst there was substantial variability in the individual presenting symptoms, the majority (59.1%) of respondents first experienced a symptom which could be classified as a conventional pain or upper limb sensory symptom, indicating a potential focus point. Behrbalk et al (2013) in their description of diagnostic delay, found 43% of patients were initially diagnosed and sometimes treated for carpal tunnel syndrome [7]. Nevertheless, the diagnostic utility of these symptoms is unclear, given the one year incidence for neck pain, in the general population, ranges from 10 to 21% [29] and that general practitioners are typically consulted 7 times a week for neck or upper extremity complaints of various causes [30]. Whilst pain is a common prompt to seek healthcare assessment in general [31, 32], its experience here was not associated with earlier diagnosis in this series. Consequently, the absence of these symptoms may instead be useful for ruling out DCM, given their high sensitivity, but low specificity, for the condition [33, 34].

Are lower limb symptoms helpful for diagnosis?

Gait dysfunction is considered one of the earliest clinical manifestations of DCM [35]. It was the most common (60%) first symptom of myelopathy in a prospective observational study of asymptomatic spinal cord compression [36], and in their review of the diagnostic accuracy of DCM symptoms, Mizer et al [34] found that difficulty in walking for 15 minutes was one of 4 symptoms with a positive likelihood ratio for DCM greater than 5.

Gait dysfunction was not individually matched in this survey. The ‘conventional lower limb motor symptoms’ group would contribute to gait dysfunction and made up 18.7% of initial symptoms. Of the individual symptoms, only ‘heavy legs’ was associated with early diagnosis. This is a similar finding to that of Hilton et al. who found that subjective imbalance was the only symptom associated with a shorter referral time between primary and secondary assessment [15]. Whilst this could be confirmation of its importance to detection, it could also represent a selection bias by professionals: driven by the socio-economic consequence of falls [37], their investigation has well-defined pathways from primary to secondary care [15]. This contrasts with the lack of a clear or unified referral pathway for most DCM symptoms, with patients being seen by neurologists, orthopaedics, pain specialists, rheumatologists and geriatricians, contributing to delays in assessment and treatment [8].

Non-conventional symptoms are common and overlooked. Could they have a role in early detection?

In this study, symptoms which were not cited in narrative review articles on DCM, were categorised as “non-conventional”. This included a number of controversial symptoms, including headache, vision and hearing impairments and dizziness. A number of hypotheses are proposed, including altered signalling via the sympathetic chain (the so called Barré-Liéou "syndrome") or facial symptoms via involvement of the spinal nucleus of the trigeminal nerve [38, 39]. However, these remain hypotheses, as whilst there are numerous descriptions of their association, particularly in the context of cervical spondylosis, the evidence base linking the two remains of low quality [4043] and as standard DCM assessments do not capture these symptoms, high quality series cannot comment. However, they do demonstrate the high prevalence of co-morbidities in these patient groups, and it is possible these experiences are secondary to different disease processes [5].

Nevertheless, whilst using similar sampling techniques, this is the second cohort in which we have described prevalent non-conventional symptoms [16]. Specifically, in this study 100% of respondents reported at least one of the 26 listed “non-conventional” symptoms and 39.7% of overall symptomatic burden was attributable to non-conventional symptoms. 11.1% of patients reported non-conventional symptoms as the first manifestation of their disease, with the vast majority (89.5%) of these being cranial or movement disorder symptoms, and whilst not shown to have statistical significance in this study, presenting with cranial symptoms was associated with a higher probability of late diagnosis.

Although controversial, this prevalence could have significant value for the detection, and subsequent earlier diagnosis, of DCM, as these symptoms will not occur with many differentials, for example carpal tunnel syndrome. We note, whilst not as comprehensive in their development of associated symptoms, a screening questionnaire based solely on symptoms for the detection of DCM (sensitivity 93.5%; specificity 67.3%) found that the odds ratio of chest tightness, a non-conventional symptom not identified by this study, in myelopathy patients compared with controls was 22.9 [44]. Supporting the proposition that non-conventional symptoms may have a role to play in the earlier diagnosis of DCM.

Conclusions

This study has re-confirmed that patients describe a varied experience of DCM, much broader than conventional descriptions, which is also the case from the outset; Non-conventional symptoms comprised 40% of a patient’s symptom burden and were experienced by all individuals. Early symptoms most commonly relate to pain or upper limb sensation, although individually heavy legs were the only single symptom associated with early diagnosis.

Understanding how these symptoms can be used to distinguish and diagnose DCM early will require further research, including into their sensitivity and specificity individually but also in combination. This is an active goal of the RECODE-DCM Diagnostic Criteria Incubator, an international working group hosted by Myelopathy.org. Parties interested in supporting this consortia are welcomed.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Copy of round 2 internet survey.

(DOCX)

S2 Appendix. Copy of round 3 internet survey.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Short and longlisted survey outcomes.

*Outcomes added after respondent suggestion in round 2. 2 shortlisted symptoms (italicised) were expanded “anatomically” for the longlist.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Comparison of demographics between survey cohort and AO Spine observational study.

Aside from gender and time to diagnosis, the cohorts are closely matched.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. Symptom frequency comparison with Tetreault et al. 2018.

Comparison of matched symptoms between this study (white) and the AO Spine prospective observational study of sufferers undergoing surgical treatment for DCM (grey). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because it contains potentially identifying and sensitive patient information. Data is available from the Myelopathy.org charity (contact via info@myelopathy.org) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Funding Statement

MRNK is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Brain Injury MedTech Co-operative based at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and BMD via a NIHR Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.

References

  • 1.Davies BM, Mowforth OD, Smith EK, Kotter MR. Degenerative cervical myelopathy. BMJ. 2018. Feb 22;360:k186. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, Yoon ST, Arnold PM, Massicotte EM, et al. Efficacy and safety of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America prospective multi-center study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013. Sep 18;95(18):1651–8. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00589 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fehlings MG, Ibrahim A, Tetreault L, Albanese V, Alvarado M, Arnold P, et al. A global perspective on the outcomes of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results from the prospective multicenter AOSpine international study on 479 patients. Spine. 2015. Sep 1;40(17):1322–8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000988 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tetreault LA, Karpova A, Fehlings MG. Predictors of outcome in patients with degenerative cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: results of a systematic review. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. 2015. Apr;24 Suppl 2:236–51. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2658-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tetreault L, Wilson JR, Kotter MRN, Côté P, Nouri A, Kopjar B, et al. Is Preoperative Duration of Symptoms a Significant Predictor of Functional Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Surgery for the Treatment of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy? Neurosurgery. 2018. Nov 16; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fehlings MG, Tetreault LA, Riew KD, Middleton JW, Aarabi B, Arnold PM, et al. A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Recommendations for Patients With Mild, Moderate, and Severe Disease and Nonmyelopathic Patients With Evidence of Cord Compression. Glob Spine J [Internet]. 2017. Sep 5 [cited 2017 Oct 5]; Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/metrics/10.1177/2192568217701914 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Behrbalk E, Salame K, Regev GJ, Keynan O, Boszczyk B, Lidar Z. Delayed diagnosis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy by primary care physicians. Neurosurg Focus. 2013. Jul;35(1):E1. doi: 10.3171/2013.3.FOCUS1374 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hilton B, Tempest-Mitchell J, Davies B, Kotter M. Route to diagnosis of degenerative cervical myelopathy in a UK healthcare system: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2019. May 5;9(5):e027000. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pope DH, Mowforth OD, Davies BM, Kotter MRN. Diagnostic Delays Lead to Greater Disability in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy and Represent a Health Inequality. Spine. 2020. Mar 15;45(6):368–77. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Davies BM, Khan DZ, Mowforth OD, McNair AGK, Gronlund T, Kolias AG, et al. RE-CODE DCM (REsearch Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy): A Consensus Process to Improve Research Efficiency in DCM, Through Establishment of a Standardized Dataset for Clinical Research and the Definition of the Research Priorities. Glob Spine J. 2019. May;9(1 Suppl):65S–76S. doi: 10.1177/2192568219832855 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Waqar M, Wilcock J, Garner J, Davies B, Kotter M. Quantitative analysis of medical students’ and physicians’ knowledge of degenerative cervical myelopathy. BMJ Open. 2020. Jan 12;10(1):e028455. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028455 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Davies BM, Munro CF, Kotter MR. A Novel Insight Into the Challenges of Diagnosing Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Using Web-Based Symptom Checkers. J Med Internet Res. 2019. Jan 11;21(1):e10868. doi: 10.2196/10868 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tetreault L, Kopjar B, Nouri A, Arnold P, Barbagallo G, Bartels R, et al. The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale: establishing criteria for mild, moderate and severe impairment in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. 2017. Jan;26(1):78–84. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4660-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Davies BM, McHugh M, Elgheriani A, Kolias AG, Tetreault LA, Hutchinson PJA, et al. Reported Outcome Measures in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Systematic Review. PloS One. 2016;11(8):e0157263. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157263 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hilton B, Tempest-Mitchell J, Davies B, Kotter M. Assessment of degenerative cervical myelopathy differs between specialists and may influence time to diagnosis and clinical outcomes. PloS One. 2018;13(12):e0207709. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Davies BM, Munro C, Khan DZ, Fitzpatrick SM, Hilton B, Mowforth OD, et al. Outcomes of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy From The Perspective of Persons Living With the Condition: Findings of a Semistructured Interview Process With Partnered Internet Survey. Glob Spine J. 2020. Nov 18;2192568220953811. doi: 10.1177/2192568220953811 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Boerger TF, Davies BM, Sadler I, Sarewitz E, Kotter MRN. Patient, sufferer, victim, casualty or person with cervical myelopathy: let us decide our identifier. Integr Healthc J. 2020. Jun 1;2(1):e000023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Jünger S, Payne SA, Brine J, Radbruch L, Brearley SG. Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliat Med. 2017. Sep;31(8):684–706. doi: 10.1177/0269216317690685 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004. 29;6(3):e34. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Khan DZ, Fitzpatrick SM, Hilton B, McNair AG, Sarewitz E, Davies BM, et al. Prevailing Outcome Themes Reported by People With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Focus Group Study. JMIR Form Res. 2021. Feb 3;5(2):e18732. doi: 10.2196/18732 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Rhee JM, Shi WJ, Cyriac M, Kim JY, Zhou F, Easley KA, et al. The P-mJOA: A Patient-derived, Self-reported Outcome Instrument for Evaluating Cervical Myelopathy: Comparison with the mJOA. Clin Spine Surg. 2018;31(2):E115–20. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000591 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Davies BM, McHugh M, Elgheriani A, Kolias AG, Tetreault L, Hutchinson PJA, et al. The reporting of study and population characteristics in degenerative cervical myelopathy: A systematic review. PloS One. 2017;12(3):e0172564. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172564 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ekman A, Dickman PW, Klint A, Weiderpass E, Litton J-E. Feasibility of using web-based questionnaires in large population-based epidemiological studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21(2):103–11. doi: 10.1007/s10654-005-6030-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.van Gelder MMHJ Bretveld RW, Roeleveld N. Web-based questionnaires: the future in epidemiology? Am J Epidemiol. 2010. Dec 1;172(11):1292–8. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Smith B, Smith TC, Gray GC, Ryan MAK, Millennium Cohort Study Team. When epidemiology meets the Internet: Web-based surveys in the Millennium Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007. Dec 1;166(11):1345–54. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwm212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Touvier M, Méjean C, Kesse-Guyot E, Pollet C, Malon A, Castetbon K, et al. Comparison between web-based and paper versions of a self-administered anthropometric questionnaire. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010. May;25(5):287–96. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9433-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kelstrup AM, Juillerat P, Korzenik J. The accuracy of self-reported medical history: a preliminary analysis of the promise of internet-based research in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. J Crohns Colitis. 2014. May;8(5):349–56. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2013.09.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bidmon S, Terlutter R. Gender Differences in Searching for Health Information on the Internet and the Virtual Patient-Physician Relationship in Germany: Exploratory Results on How Men and Women Differ and Why. J Med Internet Res. 2015. Jun 22;17(6):e156. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4127 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hoy DG, Protani M, De R, Buchbinder R. The epidemiology of neck pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010. Dec;24(6):783–92. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2011.01.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bot SDM, van der Waal JM, Terwee CB, van der Windt D a. WM, Schellevis FG, Bouter LM, et al. Incidence and prevalence of complaints of the neck and upper extremity in general practice. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005. Jan;64(1):118–23. doi: 10.1136/ard.2003.019349 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Finley CR, Chan DS, Garrison S, Korownyk C, Kolber MR, Campbell S, et al. What are the most common conditions in primary care? Systematic review. Can Fam Physician Med Fam Can. 2018. Nov;64(11):832–40. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mäntyselkä P, Kumpusalo E, Ahonen R, Kumpusalo A, Kauhanen J, Viinamäki H, et al. Pain as a reason to visit the doctor: a study in Finnish primary health care. Pain. 2001. Jan;89(2–3):175–80. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00361-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cook C, Roman M, Stewart KM, Leithe LG, Isaacs R. Reliability and diagnostic accuracy of clinical special tests for myelopathy in patients seen for cervical dysfunction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009. Mar;39(3):172–8. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2009.2938 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mizer A, Bachmann A, Gibson J, Donaldson MB. Self-report and subjective history in the diagnosis of painful neck conditions: A systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017. Oct;31:30–44. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2017.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kalsi-Ryan S, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: the clinical phenomenon and the current pathobiology of an increasingly prevalent and devastating disorder. Neurosci Rev J Bringing Neurobiol Neurol Psychiatry. 2013. Aug;19(4):409–21. doi: 10.1177/1073858412467377 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kadanka Z, Adamova B, Kerkovsky M, Kadanka Z, Dusek L, Jurova B, et al. Predictors of symptomatic myelopathy in degenerative cervical spinal cord compression. Brain Behav. 2017. Sep;7(9):e00797. doi: 10.1002/brb3.797 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Radcliff KE, Curry EP, Trimba R, Walker JB, Purtill JJ, Austin MS, et al. High Incidence of Undiagnosed Cervical Myelopathy in Patients With Hip Fracture Compared With Controls. J Orthop Trauma. 2016. Apr;30(4):189–93. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000485 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mowforth OD, Davies BM, Kotter MR. ‘I am not delusional!’ Sensory dysaesthesia secondary to degenerative cervical myelopathy. BMJ Case Rep. 2019. Apr 11;12(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Rao R. Neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical myelopathy: pathophysiology, natural history, and clinical evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002. Oct;84-A(10):1872–81. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200210000-00021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Muheremu A, Sun Y, Yan K, Yu J, Zheng S, Tian W. Effect of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion on Patients with Atypical Symptoms Related to Cervical Spondylosis. J Neurol Surg Part Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2016. Sep;77(5):395–9. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1582015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Pearce JMS. Barré-Liéou ‘syndrome’. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004. Feb;75(2):319. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sun Y, Muheremu A, Yan K, Yu J, Zheng S, Tian W. Effect of double-door laminoplasty on atypical symptoms associated with cervical spondylotic myelopathy/radiculopathy. BMC Surg. 2016. May 10;16(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12893-016-0146-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Sun Y-Q, Zheng S, Yu J, Yan K, Tian W. Effect of total disc replacement on atypical symptoms associated with cervical spondylosis. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. 2013. Jul;22(7):1553–7. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2785-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kobayashi H, Kikuchi S, Otani K, Sekiguchi M, Sekiguchi Y, Konno S. Development of a self-administered questionnaire to screen patients for cervical myelopathy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010. Nov 22;11:268. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-268 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Andrea Martinuzzi

28 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-10626Targeting earlier diagnosis: what symptoms come first in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Davies,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the points rised by the reviewer.

Please submit your revised manuscript by November 15th. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrea Martinuzzi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“Research in MRNK's laboratory is supported by a core support grant from the Wellcome Trust and Medical Research Council to the Wellcome Trust-Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute.

This report is independent research arising from a National Institute for Health Research Clinician Scientist Award to MRNK (CS-2015-15-023).

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for providing the following Funding Statement: 

” BMD is supported by NIHR POLYFIX DCM and NIHR Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship grants. BMD is a founder of MoveMed (a digital therapeutics platform which develops assessments and treatments using software). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

We note that one or more of the authors is affiliated with the funding organization, indicating the funder may have had some role in the design, data collection, analysis or preparation of your manuscript for publication; in other words, the funder played an indirect role through the participation of the co-authors.

If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please make any necessary amendments directly within this section of the online submission form.  Please also update your Funding Statement to include the following statement: “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If the funding organization did have an additional role, please state and explain that role within your Funding Statement.

Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. 

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Its very well written article with sound methodology and analysis of the results. It gives good insight into DCM. This helps inn early diagnosis of the DCM. How much of importance to be given to non conventional symptoms?

Reviewer #2: The study design and analysis are well done. I have little to say about this.

The authors focus on the symptoms, and how they do or do not relate to early diagnosis, which is an important finding.

However, the frequency of first symptoms add to the body of knowledge, the top 5 to 6 symptoms that the patient reports, should lead to more in depth assessment of the patient and that general comment or statement is not made in the paper.

For the group writing this paper simply reporting on results should not be the end of the paper, a recommendation or two should come of it.

I would like to see something related to, "if we see …… symptoms, further assessment should be done to confirm diagnosis." An emphasis should be placed on, when upper limb symptoms occur, the neck should be cleared and red flags should be investigated.

I would like to see a little more thought and clinical relevance emphasized in the discussion and conclusion.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Sukhvinder Kalsi-Ryan

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 31;18(3):e0281856. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281856.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Dec 2022

Editor’s comments:

1. “Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf”

� To the best of our knowledge, we believe that our manuscript adheres to PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

� Some of the authors’ affiliations were re-ordered to ensure this matched the formatting guidelines.

2. “Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.”

� As stated IRB Approval was obtained from the University of Cambridge

� When respondents first clicked on a link to the online survey, they were presented with an information page which explained the nature and purpose of the study. By continuing past this opening page, they gave informed consent to participate in the study.

� The methods section has been updated to reflect that this was informed consent.

3. “Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: “Research in MRNK's laboratory is supported by a core support grant from the Wellcome Trust and Medical Research Council to the Wellcome Trust-Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute. This report is independent research arising from a National Institute for Health Research Clinician Scientist Award to MRNK (CS-2015-15-023). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit- now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.”

� Please see the amended funding statement at the end of this document. There were no additional sources of funding for this study and the statement was amended to reflect that.

4. “Thank you for providing the following Funding Statement: “BMD is supported by NIHR POLYFIX DCM and NIHR Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship grants. BMD is a founder of MoveMed (a digital therapeutics platform which develops assessments and treatments using software). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” We note that one or more of the authors is affiliated with the funding organization, indicating the funder may have had some role in the design, data collection, analysis or preparation of your manuscript for publication; in other words, the funder played an indirect role through the participation of the co-authors. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please make any necessary amendments directly within this section of the online submission form. Please also update your Funding Statement to include the following statement: “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.” If the funding organization did have an additional role, please state and explain that role within your Funding Statement. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.”

� The funding organisation played no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

� BMD’s contribution to the study was through project conceptualisation, supervision, and manuscript revision. This been updated within the author contributions section of the online submission form.

� The funding statement has been amended to reflect the funder’s role. The amended statement is at the bottom of this document.

� The competing interests statement has been amended to add the statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.”

5. “Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.”

� To the best of our knowledge, we believe our reference list to be complete and correct.

Reviewers’ comments:

1. Reviewer #1: “Its very well written article with sound methodology and analysis of the results. It gives good insight into DCM. This helps inn early diagnosis of the DCM. How much of importance to be given to non conventional symptoms?”

� Thank you. We believe that the results from this study suggest that non-conventional symptoms are significantly more prevalent than previously thought, even at disease presentation. However, it remains unclear exactly how useful they will be in diagnosing DCM at an earlier stage. We hope that the results of this study will prompt further evaluation and investigations of this possibility.

2. Reviewer #2: “The study design and analysis are well done. I have little to say about this. The authors focus on the symptoms, and how they do or do not relate to early diagnosis, which is an important finding. However, the frequency of first symptoms add to the body of knowledge, the top 5 to 6 symptoms that the patient reports, should lead to more in depth assessment of the patient and that general comment or statement is not made in the paper. For the group writing this paper simply reporting on results should not be the end of the paper, a recommendation or two should come of it. I would like to see something related to, "if we see ...... symptoms, further assessment should be done to confirm diagnosis." An emphasis should be placed on, when upper limb symptoms occur, the neck should be cleared and red flags should be investigated. I would like to see a little more thought and clinical relevance emphasized in the discussion and conclusion.”

� Thank you.

� As this paper was intended as a descriptive and exploratory study it would be difficult to make a strong, evidence-backed recommendation for diagnostic criteria, as the prevalence of the presenting symptoms in the general population was not investigated.

� However, it is likely that many of the most common DCM presenting symptoms (especially those of the conventional pain category) will have a low specificity for DCM given their high prevalence in the general population.

� The most sensible and intuitive approach would be to consider a diagnosis of DCM when a patient presents with a combination of a conventional pain symptom with either an upper limb sensory or lower limb motor symptom. However, this approach would require validation in a properly designed diagnostic study to determine its sensitivity and specificity for detecting DCM.

� This is a goal of a working group called the RECODE-DCM Diagnostic Criteria Incubator, and remains a work in progress. We have included a recommendation to this effect in the conclusion of the paper.

� As discussed in the paper, we also feel that further exploration of non-conventional symptoms may be of benefit to early diagnosis.

Decision Letter 1

Andrea Martinuzzi

3 Feb 2023

Targeting earlier diagnosis: what symptoms come first in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy?

PONE-D-22-10626R1

Dear Dr. Davies,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Andrea Martinuzzi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Andrea Martinuzzi

23 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-10626R1

Targeting earlier diagnosis: what symptoms come first in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy?

Dear Dr. Davies:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andrea Martinuzzi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Copy of round 2 internet survey.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Appendix. Copy of round 3 internet survey.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Short and longlisted survey outcomes.

    *Outcomes added after respondent suggestion in round 2. 2 shortlisted symptoms (italicised) were expanded “anatomically” for the longlist.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Comparison of demographics between survey cohort and AO Spine observational study.

    Aside from gender and time to diagnosis, the cohorts are closely matched.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig. Symptom frequency comparison with Tetreault et al. 2018.

    Comparison of matched symptoms between this study (white) and the AO Spine prospective observational study of sufferers undergoing surgical treatment for DCM (grey). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

    (DOCX)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because it contains potentially identifying and sensitive patient information. Data is available from the Myelopathy.org charity (contact via info@myelopathy.org) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES