Literature DB >> 19533179

Minimal important differences of the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire following surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis.

Juan Bagó1, Francisco J S Pérez-Grueso, Esther Les, Pablo Hernández, Ferran Pellisé.   

Abstract

The responsiveness of an instrument measuring health-related quality of life is an important indication of its construct validity. The SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire has become the most widely used patient-reported outcome instrument in the clinical evaluation of patients with idiopathic scoliosis. The responsiveness of the SRS-22 following surgical treatment in patients with idiopathic scoliosis has not been fully assessed. The aim of this study is to evaluate this factor by calculating the minimal important differences (MIDs) of the SRS-22 Questionnaire. The study included 91 patients with idiopathic scoliosis (77 females and 14 males), who underwent surgical treatment; mean age at the time of surgery was 18.1 years. Patients completed the SRS-22 questionnaire before surgery and at a follow-up visit (mean follow-up, 45.6 months). At follow-up, patients rated their overall situation as related to before surgery with a four-point Likert scale: 1-Worse, 2-Same, 3-Better, 4-Much Better. This evaluation represented the global perceived effect (GPE) and served as the anchor criterion for calculating the MID. MIDs were calculated using two approaches. The anchor-based MID (MID-A) was defined as the mean preoperative/follow-up difference in SRS-22 scores in the group of patients who stated they were much better than before surgery (GPE = 4). Using the same anchor criterion, the optimal cut-off value able to identify patients that had clearly improved was determined on a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. In addition, the distribution-based MID (MID-D) was calculated by the standard error of measurement method. The MID-As found for the different subscales and the sum score were: pain 0.6, function 0.3, image 1.3, mental health 0.3, average sum score 0.6, and raw sum score 13.1. The cut-off values on the ROC curve were: pain 0.2, function 0.0, image 1.6, mental health 0.4, average sum score 0.4, and raw sum score 10. The MID-Ds were: pain 0.6, function 0.8, image 0.5, mental health 0.4, average sum score 0.5, and raw sum score 6.8. As was expected, the MID values differed according to the calculation method used. In light of the fact that the MID-As for the function and mental health subscales are below the measurement error of the instrument, it seems preferable to use the MID-D values for determining subscale changes. If the purpose is to analyze sum score changes (either the raw or average values), the MID-A is preferable because it includes the patient's evaluation of the results of surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19533179      PMCID: PMC2899428          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1066-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  25 in total

Review 1.  Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness.

Authors:  D E Beaton
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.

Authors:  Anne G Copay; Brian R Subach; Steven D Glassman; David W Polly; Thomas C Schuler
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-04-02       Impact factor: 4.166

3.  Statistical significance versus clinical importance: trials on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain as example.

Authors:  Maurits van Tulder; Antti Malmivaara; Jill Hayden; Bart Koes
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  A minimal clinically important difference was derived for the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for low back pain.

Authors:  Kelvin Jordan; Kate M Dunn; Martyn Lewis; Peter Croft
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-11-04       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Reliability of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire (Italian version) in mild adolescent vertebral deformities.

Authors:  M Monticone; R Carabalona; S Negrini
Journal:  Eura Medicophys       Date:  2004-09

6.  Validity of the Spanish version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) Patient Questionnaire.

Authors:  Jose M Climent; Juan Bago; Anna Ey; Francisco J S Perez-Grueso; Enrique Izquierdo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis.

Authors:  L G Lenke; R R Betz; J Harms; K H Bridwell; D H Clements; T G Lowe; K Blanke
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 8.  Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; David Osoba; Albert W Wu; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Geoffrey R Norman
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.616

9.  Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery?

Authors:  Keith H Bridwell; Sigurd Berven; Steven Glassman; Christopher Hamill; William C Horton; Lawrence G Lenke; Frank Schwab; Christine Baldus; Michael Shainline
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  The Spanish version of the SRS-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis: transcultural adaptation and reliability analysis.

Authors:  Juan Bago; Jose M Climent; Anna Ey; Francisco J S Perez-Grueso; Enrique Izquierdo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  23 in total

1.  How do idiopathic scoliosis patients who improve after surgery differ from those who do not exceed a minimum detectable change?

Authors:  Joan Bago; Francisco Javier Sanchez Perez-Grueso; Ferran Pellise; Esther Les
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  No added value of 2-year radiographic follow-up of fusion surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Raf H Mens; Miranda L van Hooff; Ruth E Geuze; Maarten Spruit; Philip P Horsting; Marinus de Kleuver; Luuk W L de Klerk
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-01-03       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Research in spinal surgery: Evaluation and practice of evidence-based medicine.

Authors:  Mark E Oppenlander; Christopher M Maulucci; George M Ghobrial; James S Harrop
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2014-04-18

4.  The body image disturbance questionnaire-scoliosis better correlates to quality of life measurements than the spinal assessment questionnaire in pediatric idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Jennifer M Bauer
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2021-04-30

5.  Effect of surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis on the quality of life: a prospective study with a minimum 5-year follow-up.

Authors:  Massimo Mariconda; Claudia Andolfi; Simone Cerbasi; Valeria Servodidio
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Impact of Surgery on the Quality of Life of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.

Authors:  Pedro Fernandes; Joaquim Soares Do Brito; Isabel Flores; Jacinto Monteiro
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2019

Review 7.  Quality of life outcomes in surgically treated adult scoliosis patients: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jennifer Theis; Paul Gerdhem; Allan Abbott
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-11-08       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  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

Review 9.  Do vertebral derotation techniques offer better outcomes compared to traditional methods in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis?

Authors:  Paul R P Rushton; Michael P Grevitt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Comparative responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences for idiopathic ulnar impaction syndrome.

Authors:  Jae Kwang Kim; Eun Soo Park
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.