Stein J Janssen1, Teun Teunis2, Eva van Dijk2, Marco L Ferrone3, John H Shin4, Francis Hornicek2, Joseph H Schwab2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Oncology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital-Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114, USA. Electronic address: steinjanssen@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Oncology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital-Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spine Service, Brigham and Women's Hospital-Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital-Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: General questionnaires are often used to assess quality of life in patients with spine metastases, although a disease-specific survey did not exist until recently. The Spine Oncology Study Group has developed an outcomes questionnaire (SOSG-OQ) to measure quality of life in these patients. However, a scoring system was not developed, and the questionnaire was not validated in a group of patients, nor was it compared with other general quality of life questionnaires such as the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. PURPOSE: Our primary null hypothesis is that there is no association between the SOSG-OQ and EQ-5D. Our secondary null hypothesis is that there is no difference in coverage and internal consistency between the SOSG-OQ and EQ-5D. We also assess coverage, consistency, and validity of the domains within the SOSG-OQ. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: A survey study from a tertiary care spine referral center was used for this study. PATIENT SAMPLE: The patient sample consisted of 82 patients with spine metastases, myeloma, or lymphoma. OUTCOME MEASURES: The SOSG-OQ (27 questions, 6 domains) score ranges from 0 to 80, with a higher score indicating worse quality of life. The EQ-5D (5 questions, 5 domains) index score ranges from 0 to 1, with a higher score indicating better quality of life. METHODS: The association between the SOSG-OQ and EQ-5D index score was assessed using the Spearman rank correlation. Instrument coverage and precision were assessed by determining item completion rate, median score with range, and floor and ceiling effect. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach alpha. Multitrait analysis and exploratory factor analysis were used to analyze properties of the individual domains in the SOSG-OQ. RESULTS: The Spearman rank correlation between the SOSG-OQ and EQ-5D questionnaire was high (r=-0.83, p<.001). Internal consistency of the SOSG-OQ (0.92, 95% CI: 0.89-0.94) was higher as compared to the internal consistency of the EQ-5D (0.73, 95% CI: 0.63-0.84; p<.001). The SOSG-OQ score had no floor or ceiling effect indicating good coverage (median 30, range 3-64), whereas the EQ-5D had a ceiling effect of 10% (median 0.71, range 0.05-1). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our study proposes a scoring methodology-after reversing four inversely scored items-for the SOSG-OQ and shows that the questionnaire is a valid tool for the assessment of quality of life in patients with metastatic spine disease. The SOSG-OQ is superior to the EQ-5D in terms of coverage and internal consistency but consists of more questions.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: General questionnaires are often used to assess quality of life in patients with spine metastases, although a disease-specific survey did not exist until recently. The Spine Oncology Study Group has developed an outcomes questionnaire (SOSG-OQ) to measure quality of life in these patients. However, a scoring system was not developed, and the questionnaire was not validated in a group of patients, nor was it compared with other general quality of life questionnaires such as the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. PURPOSE: Our primary null hypothesis is that there is no association between the SOSG-OQ and EQ-5D. Our secondary null hypothesis is that there is no difference in coverage and internal consistency between the SOSG-OQ and EQ-5D. We also assess coverage, consistency, and validity of the domains within the SOSG-OQ. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: A survey study from a tertiary care spine referral center was used for this study. PATIENT SAMPLE: The patient sample consisted of 82 patients with spine metastases, myeloma, or lymphoma. OUTCOME MEASURES: The SOSG-OQ (27 questions, 6 domains) score ranges from 0 to 80, with a higher score indicating worse quality of life. The EQ-5D (5 questions, 5 domains) index score ranges from 0 to 1, with a higher score indicating better quality of life. METHODS: The association between the SOSG-OQ and EQ-5D index score was assessed using the Spearman rank correlation. Instrument coverage and precision were assessed by determining item completion rate, median score with range, and floor and ceiling effect. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach alpha. Multitrait analysis and exploratory factor analysis were used to analyze properties of the individual domains in the SOSG-OQ. RESULTS: The Spearman rank correlation between the SOSG-OQ and EQ-5D questionnaire was high (r=-0.83, p<.001). Internal consistency of the SOSG-OQ (0.92, 95% CI: 0.89-0.94) was higher as compared to the internal consistency of the EQ-5D (0.73, 95% CI: 0.63-0.84; p<.001). The SOSG-OQ score had no floor or ceiling effect indicating good coverage (median 30, range 3-64), whereas the EQ-5D had a ceiling effect of 10% (median 0.71, range 0.05-1). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our study proposes a scoring methodology-after reversing four inversely scored items-for the SOSG-OQ and shows that the questionnaire is a valid tool for the assessment of quality of life in patients with metastatic spine disease. The SOSG-OQ is superior to the EQ-5D in terms of coverage and internal consistency but consists of more questions.
Authors: Janneke van Roij; Heidi Fransen; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse; Myrte Zijlstra; Natasja Raijmakers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ilya Laufer; Simon S Lo; Eric L Chang; Jason Sheehan; Matthias Guckenberger; Moon-Jun Sohn; Samuel Ryu; Matthew Foote; Alexander Muacevic; Scott G Soltys; Samuel Chao; Sten Myrehaug; Peter C Gerszten; Eric Lis; Pejman Maralani; Mark Bilsky; Charles Fisher; Laurence Rhines; Jorrit-Jan Verlaan; David Schiff; Michael G Fehlings; Lijun Ma; Susan Chang; Wendy R Parulekar; Michael A Vogelbaum; Arjun Sahgal Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Olivier D R van Wulfften Palthe; Matthew T Houdek; Peter S Rose; Michael J Yaszemski; Franklin H Sim; Patrick J Boland; John H Healey; Francis J Hornicek; Joseph H Schwab Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Ori Barzilai; Lily McLaughlin; Mary-Kate Amato; Anne S Reiner; Shahiba Q Ogilvie; Eric Lis; Yoshiya Yamada; Mark H Bilsky; Ilya Laufer Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Anne L Versteeg; Arjun Sahgal; Laurence D Rhines; Daniel M Sciubba; James M Schuster; Michael H Weber; Peter Pal Varga; Stefano Boriani; Chetan Bettegowda; Michael G Fehlings; Michelle J Clarke; Paul M Arnold; Ziya L Gokaslan; Charles G Fisher Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ori Barzilai; Stefano Boriani; Charles G Fisher; Arjun Sahgal; Jorrit Jan Verlaan; Ziya L Gokaslan; Aron Lazary; Chetan Bettegowda; Laurence D Rhines; Ilya Laufer Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2019-05-08
Authors: Ori Barzilai; Mary-Kate Amato; Lily McLaughlin; Anne S Reiner; Shahiba Q Ogilvie; Eric Lis; Yoshiya Yamada; Mark H Bilsky; Ilya Laufer Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2017-07-22