A F Mannion1, A Vila-Casademunt2, M Domingo-Sàbat2, S Wunderlin3, F Pellisé4, J Bago4, E Acaroglu5, A Alanay6, F S Pérez-Grueso7, I Obeid8, F S Kleinstück3. 1. Spine Center Division, Department of Research and Development, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. anne.mannion@kws.ch. 2. Spine Research Unit, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Research, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Spine Center Division, Department of Research and Development, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Spine Surgery Unit, Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Spine Surgery Unit, Ankara Spine Center, Ankara, Turkey. 6. Spine Surgery Unit, Acibadem Maslak Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 7. Spine Surgery Unit, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain. 8. Spine Surgery Unit, Pellegrin Hospital, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Core Outcome Measures Index for the back (COMI-back) is a very brief instrument for assessing the main outcomes of importance to patients with back problems (pain, function, symptom-specific well-being, quality of life, disability). However, it might be expected to be less responsive than a disease-specific instrument when evaluating specific pathologies. In patients with adult spinal deformity, we compared the performance of COMI-back with the widely accepted SRS-22 questionnaire. METHODS: At baseline and 12 months after non-operative (N = 121) and surgical (N = 83) treatment, patients (175 F, 29 M) completed the following: COMI-back, SRS-22, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and SF-36 PCS. At 12 months' follow-up, patients also indicated on a 15-point Global Rating of Change Scale (GRCS) how their back problem had changed relative to 1 year ago. Construct validity for the COMI-back was assessed by the correlation between its scores and those of the comparator instruments; responsiveness was assessed with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis of COMI-back change scores versus the criterion 'treatment success' (dichotomized GRCS). RESULTS: Baseline values for the COMI-back showed significant (p < 0.0001) correlations with SRS-22 (r = -0.85), ODI (r = 0.83), and SF-36 PCS (r = -0.82) scores; significantly worse scores for all measures were recorded in the surgical group. The correlation between the change scores (baseline to 12 months) for COMI and SRS-22 was 0.74, and between each of these change scores and the external criterion of treatment success were: COMI-back, r = 0.58; SRS-22, r = -0.58 (each p < 0.0001). The ROC areas under the curve for the COMI-back and SRS-22 change scores were 0.79 and 0.82, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both baseline and change scores for the COMI-back correlated strongly with those of the SRS-22, and differed significantly in surgical and non-operative patients, suggesting good construct validity. With the "change in the back problem" serving as external criterion, COMI-back showed similar external responsiveness to SRS-22. The COMI-back was well able to detect important change. Coupled with its brevity, which minimizes patient burden, these favourable psychometric properties suggest the COMI-back is a suitable instrument for use in registries and can serve as a valid instrument in clinical studies emerging from such data pools.
INTRODUCTION: The Core Outcome Measures Index for the back (COMI-back) is a very brief instrument for assessing the main outcomes of importance to patients with back problems (pain, function, symptom-specific well-being, quality of life, disability). However, it might be expected to be less responsive than a disease-specific instrument when evaluating specific pathologies. In patients with adult spinal deformity, we compared the performance of COMI-back with the widely accepted SRS-22 questionnaire. METHODS: At baseline and 12 months after non-operative (N = 121) and surgical (N = 83) treatment, patients (175 F, 29 M) completed the following: COMI-back, SRS-22, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and SF-36 PCS. At 12 months' follow-up, patients also indicated on a 15-point Global Rating of Change Scale (GRCS) how their back problem had changed relative to 1 year ago. Construct validity for the COMI-back was assessed by the correlation between its scores and those of the comparator instruments; responsiveness was assessed with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis of COMI-back change scores versus the criterion 'treatment success' (dichotomized GRCS). RESULTS: Baseline values for the COMI-back showed significant (p < 0.0001) correlations with SRS-22 (r = -0.85), ODI (r = 0.83), and SF-36 PCS (r = -0.82) scores; significantly worse scores for all measures were recorded in the surgical group. The correlation between the change scores (baseline to 12 months) for COMI and SRS-22 was 0.74, and between each of these change scores and the external criterion of treatment success were: COMI-back, r = 0.58; SRS-22, r = -0.58 (each p < 0.0001). The ROC areas under the curve for the COMI-back and SRS-22 change scores were 0.79 and 0.82, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both baseline and change scores for the COMI-back correlated strongly with those of the SRS-22, and differed significantly in surgical and non-operative patients, suggesting good construct validity. With the "change in the back problem" serving as external criterion, COMI-back showed similar external responsiveness to SRS-22. The COMI-back was well able to detect important change. Coupled with its brevity, which minimizes patient burden, these favourable psychometric properties suggest the COMI-back is a suitable instrument for use in registries and can serve as a valid instrument in clinical studies emerging from such data pools.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adult deformity; Core outcome measures; Non-operative treatment; SRS-22; Surgery
Authors: A F Mannion; F Porchet; F S Kleinstück; F Lattig; D Jeszenszky; V Bartanusz; J Dvorak; D Grob Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2009-03-19 Impact factor: 3.134
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
Authors: Anne F Mannion; Tamas F Fekete; Maria M Wertli; Michele Mattle; Selina Nauer; Frank S Kleinstück; Dezsö Jeszenszky; Daniel Haschtmann; Hans-Jürgen Becker; François Porchet Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Marco Monticone; Simona Ferrante; Serena Maggioni; Gisel Grenat; Giovanni A Checchia; Marco Testa; Marco G Teli; Anne F Mannion Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2013-11-23 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Sayf S A Faraj; Miranda L van Hooff; Roderick M Holewijn; David W Polly; Tsjitske M Haanstra; Marinus de Kleuver Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: J Van Lerbeirghe; J Van Lerbeirghe; P Van Schaeybroeck; H Robijn; R Rasschaert; J Sys; T Parlevliet; G Hallaert; P Van Wambeke; B Depreitere Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Sleiman Haddad; Susana Núñez-Pereira; Carlos Pigrau; Dolors Rodríguez-Pardo; Alba Vila-Casademunt; Ahmet Alanay; Emre R Acaroglu; Frank S Kleinstueck; Ibrahim Obeid; Francisco Javier Sanchez Perez-Grueso; Ferran Pellisé Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Selim Ayhan; Selcen Yuksel; Vugar Nabiyev; Prashant Adhikari; Alba Villa-Casademunt; Ferran Pellise; Francisco Sanchez Perez-Grueso; Ahmet Alanay; Ibrahim Obeid; Frank Kleinstueck; Emre Acaroglu Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2018-04-29
Authors: Francesco Langella; Alberto Balestrino; Marco Damilano; Riccardo Cecchinato; Zeno Biber; Marco Paoletta; Giovanni Iolascon; Claudio Lamartina; Giuseppe M Peretti; Pedro Berjano Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 2.617