Literature DB >> 11124724

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

C Bombardier1.   

Abstract

Clinicians and researchers increasingly recognize the importance of the patient's perspective in the evaluations of the effectiveness of treatment. The rapid growth in the number and types of patient-based outcome measures can be confusing. This supplement provides a state-of-the-art review of the available tools. In this paper, the key recommendations from the participating authors are summarized. A core set of measures should include the following five domains: back specific function, generic health status, pain, work disability, and patient satisfaction. Two commonly used measures of back-specific function are recommended: the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index. Among the generic measures, the SF-36 strikes the best balance between length, reliability, validity, responsiveness, and experience in large populations of patients with back pain. Moreover, the SF-36 Bodily Pain Scale provides a brief measure of pain intensity and pain interference with activities. Health-related work disability should include at a minimum a measure of work status and work-time loss. For those who are still at work, new measures are being developed to measure health-related work limitations. No single measure of patient satisfaction is clearly preferred but guiding principles are provided to choose among available measures. In addition to the five recommended domains, preference-based health outcome measures, including patients utilities, may be useful when there is a need to value alternative health outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11124724     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  184 in total

1.  Generating workplace accommodations: lessons learned from the integrated case management study.

Authors:  William S Shaw; Michael Feuerstein
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2004-09

Review 2.  History, design characteristics, and uses of the pictorial activity and task sorts.

Authors:  Leonard N Matheson
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2004-09

Review 3.  Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part I: validation.

Authors:  U Müller; M S Duetz; C Roeder; C G Greenough
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-03-17       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part II: scale construction.

Authors:  U Müller; C Roeder; L Dubs; M S Duetz; C G Greenough
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-03-17       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Cross-cultural adaptation and assessment of the reliability and validity of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the Brazilian-Portuguese language.

Authors:  L H F Damasceno; P A G Rocha; E S Barbosa; C A M Barros; F T Canto; H L A Defino; A F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Comparing current definitions of return to work: a measurement approach.

Authors:  I A Steenstra; H Lee; E M M de Vroome; J W Busse; S J Hogg-Johnson
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2012-09

Review 7.  The effectiveness of walking as an intervention for low back pain: a systematic review.

Authors:  P Hendrick; A M Te Wake; A S Tikkisetty; L Wulff; C Yap; S Milosavljevic
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-04-23       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Clinical outcomes of patients with lumbar disc herniation, selected for one-level open-discectomy and microdiscectomy.

Authors:  Kotryna Veresciagina; Bronius Spakauskas; Kazys Vytautas Ambrozaitis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  What comprises a good outcome in spinal surgery? A preliminary survey among spine surgeons of the SSE and European spine patients.

Authors:  M Haefeli; A Elfering; M Aebi; B J C Freeman; P Fritzell; J Guimaraes Consciencia; C Lamartina; M Mayer; T Lund; N Boos
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-11-08       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index.

Authors:  A F Mannion; F Porchet; F S Kleinstück; F Lattig; D Jeszenszky; V Bartanusz; J Dvorak; D Grob
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.