Literature DB >> 18201937

Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales.

Anne G Copay1, Steven D Glassman, Brian R Subach, Sigurd Berven, Thomas C Schuler, Leah Y Carreon.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The impact of lumbar spinal surgery is commonly evaluated with three patient-reported outcome measures: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the physical component summary (PCS) of the Short Form of the Medical Outcomes Study (SF-36), and pain scales. A minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is a threshold used to measure the effect of clinical treatments. Variable threshold values have been proposed as MCID for those instruments despite a lack of agreement on the optimal MCID calculation method.
PURPOSE: This study has three purposes. First, to illustrate the range of values obtained by common anchor-based and distribution-based methods to calculate MCID. Second, to determine a statistically sound and clinically meaningful MCID for ODI, PCS, back pain scale, and leg pain scale in lumbar spine surgery patients. Third, to compare the discriminative ability of two anchors: a global health assessment and a rating of satisfaction with the results of the surgery. STUDY
DESIGN: This study is a review of prospectively collected patient-reported outcomes data. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 454 patients from a large database of surgeries performed by the Lumbar Spine Study Group with a 1-year follow-up on either ODI or PCS were included in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative and 1-year postoperative scores for ODI, PCS, back pain scale, leg pain scale, health transition item (HTI) of the SF-36, and Satisfaction with Results scales.
METHODS: ODI, SF-36, and pain scales were administered before and 1 year after spinal surgery. Several candidate MCID calculation methods were applied to the data and the resulting values were compared. The HTI of the SF-36 was used as the anchor and compared with a second anchor (Satisfaction with Results scale).
RESULTS: Potential MCID calculations yielded a range of values: fivefold for ODI, PCS, and leg pain, 10-fold for back pain. Threshold values obtained with the two anchors were very similar.
CONCLUSIONS: The minimum detectable change (MDC) appears as a statistically and clinically appropriate MCID value. MCID values in this sample were 12.8 points for ODI, 4.9 points for PCS, 1.2 points for back pain, and 1.6 points for leg pain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18201937     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  259 in total

1.  Health-Related Quality of Life in Thoracic Aortic Disease: Part I. Cases Managed Non-operatively.

Authors:  Christian Olsson; Anders Franco-Cereceda
Journal:  Aorta (Stamford)       Date:  2013-08-01

2.  Temporomandibular joint effusion and its relationship with perceived disability assessed using musculoskeletal ultrasound and a patient-reported disability index.

Authors:  Katie Johnston; Lance Bird; Phillip Bright
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2015-02-05

3.  Likelihood of reaching minimal clinically important difference in adult spinal deformity: a comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment.

Authors:  Shian Liu; Frank Schwab; Justin S Smith; Eric Klineberg; Christopher P Ames; Gregory Mundis; Richard Hostin; Khaled Kebaish; Vedat Deviren; Munish Gupta; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Robert A Hart; Shay Bess; Virginie Lafage
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

4.  Long-term quality of life improvement for chronic intractable back and leg pain patients using spinal cord stimulation: 12-month results from the SENZA-RCT.

Authors:  Kasra Amirdelfan; Cong Yu; Matthew W Doust; Bradford E Gliner; Donna M Morgan; Leonardo Kapural; Ricardo Vallejo; B Todd Sitzman; Thomas L Yearwood; Richard Bundschu; Thomas Yang; Ramsin Benyamin; Abram H Burgher; Elizabeth S Brooks; Ashley A Powell; Jeyakumar Subbaroyan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Domain-specific transition questions demonstrated higher validity than global transition questions as anchors for clinically important improvement.

Authors:  Michael M Ward; Lori C Guthrie; Maria Alba
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 6.  Which Variables Are Associated With Patient-reported Outcomes After Discectomy? Review of SPORT Disc Herniation Studies.

Authors:  John D Koerner; Jordan Glaser; Kristen Radcliff
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Plasma disc decompression for contained cervical disc herniation: a randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Alessandro Cesaroni; Pier Vittorio Nardi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  Sacroiliac joint fusion for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kiran Kumar Lingutla; Raymond Pollock; Sashin Ahuja
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Factors affecting the outcome in appearance of AIS surgery in terms of the minimal clinically important difference.

Authors:  James T Bennett; Amer F Samdani; Tracey P Bastrom; Robert J Ames; Firoz Miyanji; Joshua M Pahys; Michelle C Marks; Baron S Lonner; Peter O Newton; Harry L Shufflebarger; Burt Yaszay; John M Flynn; Randal R Betz; Patrick J Cahill
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-12-09       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Patient-centered evaluation of outcomes from rehabilitation for chronic disabling spinal disorders: the impact of personal goal achievement on patient satisfaction.

Authors:  Rowland G Hazard; Kevin F Spratt; Christine M McDonough; Colleen M Olson; Elizabeth S Ossen; Eric M Hartmann; Raynee J Carlson; Jenna LaVoie
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2012-10-12       Impact factor: 4.166

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.