Literature DB >> 20847713

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

Leah Y Carreon1, Paul A Anderson, Christine M McDonough, Mladen Djurasovic, Steven D Glassman.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide an algorithm to estimate Short Form-6D (SF-6D) utilities using data from the Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck pain, and arm pain scores. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although cost-utility analysis is increasingly used to provide information about the relative value of alternative interventions, health state values or utilities are rarely available from clinical trial data. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) and numerical rating scales for neck and arm pain are widely used disease-specific measures in patients with cervical degenerative disorders. The purpose of this study is to provide an algorithm to allow estimation of SF-6D utilities using data from the NDI, and numerical rating scales for neck and arm pain.
METHODS: SF-36, NDI, neck and arm pain rating scale scores were prospectively collected before surgery, at 12 and 24 months after surgery in 2080 patients undergoing cervical fusion for degenerative disorders. SF-6D utilities were computed, and Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for paired observations from multiple time points between NDI, neck and arm pain scores, and SF-6D utility scores. SF-6D scores were estimated from the NDI, neck and arm pain scores were estimated using a linear regression model. Using a separate, independent dataset of 396 patients in which NDI scores were available, SF-6D was estimated for each subject and compared to their actual SF-6D.
RESULTS: The mean age for those in the development sample was 50.4 ± 11.0 years and 33% were male. In the validation sample, the mean age was 53.1 ± 9.9 years and 35% were male. Correlations between the SF-6D and the NDI, neck and arm pain scores were statistically significant (P < 0.0001) with correlation coefficients of 0.82, 0.62, and 0.50, respectively. The regression equation using NDI aloneto predict SF-6D had an R of 0.66 and a root mean square error of 0.056. In the validation analysis, there was no statistically significant difference (P 5 0.961) between actual mean SF-6D (0.49 6 0.08) and the estimated mean SF-6D score (0.49 6 0.08), using the NDI regression model.
CONCLUSION: This regression-based algorithm may be a useful tool to predict SF-6D scores in studies of cervical degenerative disease that have collected NDI but not utility scores.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20847713      PMCID: PMC3005013          DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d323f3

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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  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

9.  The reliability and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Marc Asher; Sue Min Lai; Doug Burton; Barbara Manna
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Use of formal benefit/cost evaluations in health system decision making.

Authors:  Bernard S Bloom
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.229

View more
  6 in total

1.  Impact of old age on patient-report outcomes and cost utility for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery for degenerative spine disease.

Authors:  Silky Chotai; Scott L Parker; J Alex Sielatycki; Ahilan Sivaganesan; Harrison F Kay; Joseph B Wick; Matthew J McGirt; Clinton J Devin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Cost-utility of revisions for cervical deformity correction warrants minimization of reoperations.

Authors:  Samantha R Horn; Peter G Passias; Aaron Hockley; Renaud Lafage; Virginie Lafage; Hamid Hassanzadeh; Jason A Horowitz; Cole A Bortz; Frank A Segreto; Avery E Brown; Justin S Smith; Daniel M Sciubba; Gregory M Mundis; Michael P Kelley; Alan H Daniels; Douglas C Burton; Robert A Hart; Frank J Schwab; Shay Bess; Christopher I Shaffrey; Richard A Hostin; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-12

3.  Cost-utility analysis modeling at 2-year follow-up for cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A single-center contribution to the randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Daniel Warren; Tate Andres; Christian Hoelscher; Pedro Ricart-Hoffiz; John Bendo; Jeffrey Goldstein
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2013-12-01

4.  Mapping the neck disability index to SF-6D in patients with chronic neck pain.

Authors:  Yongjun Zheng; Kun Tang; Le Ye; Zisheng Ai; Bin Wu
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 3.186

5.  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

6.  Tapentadol extended release for the management of chronic neck pain.

Authors:  Domenico Billeci; Flaminia Coluzzi
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 3.133

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.