Literature DB >> 28070683

Do we have the right PROMs for measuring outcomes in lumbar spinal surgery?

O M Stokes1, A A Cole2, L M Breakwell2, A J Lloyd3, C M Leonard4, M Grevitt5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become an important part of routine auditing of outcomes in spinal surgery in the UK. PROMs can be used to help assess the quality of care provided by surgical units by determining the comparative health status of patients, before and after surgery. This study was designed to review the PROMs used to assess outcomes in spinal surgery and to determine if they are fit for the purpose.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken to identify studies that reported PROMs data following lumbar spinal surgery. The PROMs that were used in each study were recorded and a separate search was undertaken to determine the evidence regarding the validity of each measure.
RESULTS: The initial search identified 1142 abstracts, which were reduced through de-duplication, filtering and review to 58 articles, which were retrieved and reviewed in full. The search identified that the majority of studies used either the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and EQ-5D along with visual analogue scales or numeric rating scales for back and leg pain.
CONCLUSIONS: The consistent use of PROMs supports the comparison of outcomes from different studies, although there was minimal evidence regarding the specificity and sensitivity of these measures for use with lumbar spinal patients. Our review highlights the need to determine a consensus regarding the use and reporting of outcome measures within the lumbar spine literature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lumbar surgery; Patient outcome assessment; Patient-reported outcome measures; Quality of life; Spinal surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28070683     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4938-x

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


  44 in total

1.  Evaluation of two time-specific back pain outcome measures.

Authors:  M R Underwood; A G Barnett; M R Vickers
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  The short form-36 health survey questionnaire in spine surgery.

Authors:  M Grevitt; R Khazim; J Webb; R Mulholland; J Shepperd
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1997-01

3.  Validity and sensitivity to change of the NASS questionnaire for patients with cervical spine disorders.

Authors:  Thomas Stoll; Erika Huber; Stefan Bachmann; Hans-Ruedi Baumeler; Stefan Mariacher; Martin Rutz; Werner Schneider; Hans Spring; André Aeschlimann; Gerold Stucki; Werner Steiner
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain.

Authors:  John D Childs; Sara R Piva; Julie M Fritz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Visual analog scales for interpretation of back and leg pain intensity in patients operated for degenerative lumbar spine disorders.

Authors:  G Zanoli; B Strömqvist; B Jönsson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  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

7.  A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects.

Authors:  Dieter Grob; Francois Porchet; Frank S Kleinstück; Friederike Lattig; Dezsoe Jeszenszky; Andrea Luca; Urs Mutter; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-10-31       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments.

Authors:  A J H M Beurskens; H C W de Vet; A J A Köke
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 6.961

9.  The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery.

Authors:  Frank S Kleinstück; Dieter Grob; Friederike Lattig; Viktor Bartanusz; Francois Porchet; Dezsö Jeszenszky; David O'Riordan; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 10.  Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP).

Authors:  Gillian A Hawker; Samra Mian; Tetyana Kendzerska; Melissa French
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.794

View more
  8 in total

1.  Prediction of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) using PROMIS-29 in a national sample of lumbar spine surgery patients.

Authors:  Jacquelyn S Pennings; Clinton J Devin; Inamullah Khan; Mohamad Bydon; Anthony L Asher; Kristin R Archer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Letter to the editor concerning "Do we have the right PROMs for measuring outcomes in lumbar spinal surgery?" by O.M. Stokes et al. Eur Spine J (2017) 26:816-824.

Authors:  Lenie Denteneer; Ulrike Van Daele; Steven Truijen; Willem De Hertogh; Jill Meirte; Gaetane Stassijns
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-10-20       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Smartphone GPS signatures of patients undergoing spine surgery correlate with mobility and current gold standard outcome measures.

Authors:  Alessandro Boaro; Jeffrey Leung; Harrison T Reeder; Francesca Siddi; Elisabetta Mezzalira; Gang Liu; Rania A Mekary; Yi Lu; Michael W Groff; Jukka-Pekka Onnela; Timothy R Smith
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2021-08-27

4.  Physical functioning outcome measures in the lumbar spinal surgery population and measurement properties of the physical outcome measures: protocol for a systematic review.

Authors:  Katie L Kowalski; Michael J Lukacs; Jai Mistry; Maren Goodman; Alison B Rushton
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 3.006

5.  Construct validity and responsiveness of commonly used patient reported outcome instruments in decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Karthik Vishwanathan; Ian Braithwaite
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-01-13

6.  Dynamic balance in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis; a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Elisabeth Thornes; Hilde Stendal Robinson; Nina Køpke Vøllestad
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 7.  The employment of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to communicate the likely benefits of surgery.

Authors:  Norman Briffa
Journal:  Patient Relat Outcome Meas       Date:  2018-08-16

8.  Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Lumbar Decompression Surgery: A Review of 2699 Cases.

Authors:  Geraint Sunderland; Mitchell Foster; Sujay Dheerendra; Robin Pillay
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-01-07
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.