Literature DB >> 19730215

Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the Oswestry disability index and numeric rating scales for back and leg pain.

Leah Y Carreon1, Steven D Glassman, Christine M McDonough, Raja Rampersaud, Sigurd Berven, Michael Shainline.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to provide a model to allow estimation of utility from the Short Form (SF)-6D using data from the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Back Pain Numeric Rating Scale (BPNRS), and the Leg Pain Numeric Rating Scale (LPNRS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cost-utility analysis provides important information about the relative value of interventions and requires a measure of utility not often available from clinical trial data. The ODI and numeric rating scales for back (BPNRS) and leg pain (LPNRS), are widely used disease-specific measures for health-related quality of life in patients with lumbar degenerative disorders. The purpose of this study is to provide a model to allow estimation of utility from the SF-6D using data from the ODI, BPNRS, and the LPNRS.
METHODS: SF-36, ODI, BPNRS, and LPNRS were prospectively collected before surgery, at 12 and 24 months after surgery in 2640 patients undergoing lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders. Spearman correlation coefficients for paired observations from multiple time points between ODI, BPNRS, and LPNRS, and SF-6D utility scores were determined. Regression modeling was done to compute the SF-6D score from the ODI, BPNRS, and LPNRS. Using a separate, independent dataset of 2174 patients in which actual SF-6D and ODI scores were available, the SF-6D was estimated for each subject and compared to their actual SF-6D.
RESULTS: In the development sample, the mean age was 52.5 +/- 15 years and 34% were male. In the validation sample, the mean age was 52.9 +/- 14.2 years and 44% were male. Correlations between the SF-6D and the ODI, BPNRS, and LPNRS were statistically significant (P < 0.0001) with correlation coefficients of 0.82, 0.78, and 0.72, respectively. The regression equation using ODI, BPNRS,and LPNRS to predict SF-6D had an R of 0.69 and a root mean square error of 0.076. The model using ODI alone had an R of 0.67 and a root mean square error of 0.078. The correlation coefficient between the observed and estimated SF-6D score was 0.80. In the validation analysis, there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.11) between actual mean SF-6D (0.55 +/- 0.12) and the estimated mean SF-6D score (0.55 +/- 0.10) using the ODI regression model.
CONCLUSION: This regression-based algorithm may be used to predict SF-6D scores in studies of lumbar degenerative disease that have collected ODI but not utility scores.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19730215      PMCID: PMC3504506          DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a93ea6

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


  34 in total

1.  The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain.

Authors:  William Hollingworth; Richard A Deyo; Sean D Sullivan; Scott S Emerson; Darryl T Gray; Jeffrey G Jarvik
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Comparison of directly elicited preferences to preferences derived from the SF-36 in adults with asthma.

Authors:  Todd A Lee; William Hollingworth; Sean D Sullivan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Mapping the SF-12 to preference-based instruments: convergent validity in a low-income, minority population.

Authors:  Peter Franks; Erica I Lubetkin; Marthe R Gold; Daniel J Tancredi
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 Health Survey in a nationally representative sample.

Authors:  William F Lawrence; John A Fleishman
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 6.  Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights.

Authors:  Duncan Mortimer; Leonie Segal
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2008 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system.

Authors:  David Feeny; William Furlong; George W Torrance; Charles H Goldsmith; Zenglong Zhu; Sonja DePauw; Margaret Denton; Michael Boyle
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Estimation of utilities for the effects of depression from the SF-12.

Authors:  L A Lenert; C D Sherbourne; C Sugar; K B Wells
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36.

Authors:  Thomas L Walsh; Brett Hanscom; Jon D Lurie; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Can utility-weighted health-related quality-of-life estimates capture health effects of quality improvement for depression?

Authors:  C Donald Sherbourne; J Unützer; M Schoenbaum; N Duan; L A Lenert; R Sturm; K B Wells
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures.

Authors:  Fang-Ju Lin; Louise Longworth; A Simon Pickard
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  The 2-year cost-effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Authors:  Belinda L Udeh; Shrif Costandi; Jarrod E Dalton; Raktim Ghosh; Hani Yousef; Nagy Mekhail
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 3.183

3.  Surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity: projected cost effectiveness at 5-year follow-up.

Authors:  Jamie Terran; Brian J McHugh; Charla R Fischer; Baron Lonner; Daniel Warren; Steven Glassman; Keith Bridwell; Frank Schwab; Virginie Lafage
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

4.  A cost-effectiveness comparisons of adult spinal deformity surgery in the United States and Japan.

Authors:  Mitsuru Yagi; Christopher P Ames; Malla Keefe; Naobumi Hosogane; Justin S Smith; Christopher I Shaffrey; Frank Schwab; Virginie Lafage; R Shay Bess; Morio Matsumoto; Kota Watanabe
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the neck disability index and numeric rating scales for neck and arm pain.

Authors:  Leah Y Carreon; Paul A Anderson; Christine M McDonough; Mladen Djurasovic; Steven D Glassman
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Value of single-level circumferential fusion: a 10-year prospective outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis comparing posterior facet versus pedicle screw fixation.

Authors:  Glenn Buttermann; Sarah Hollmann; John-Michael Arpino; Nicole Ferko
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Comparative cost effectiveness of Coflex® interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Jordana Kate Schmier; Marci Halevi; Greg Maislin; Kevin Ong
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2014-03-18

8.  The Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Telerehabilitation for People With Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Olumide Dada; Francis Fatoye; Tadesse Gebrye; Clara Fatoye; Chidozie E Mbada; Mistura I Olaoye; Adesola C Odole
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 4.773

9.  Comparing Utility Scores in Common Spinal Radiculopathies: Results of a Prospective Valuation Study.

Authors:  Nikhil R Nayak; James H Stephen; Kalil G Abdullah; Sherman C Stein; Neil R Malhotra
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2015-09-01
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.