Literature DB >> 28803345

Substantial clinical benefit for Neck Disability Index revisited: establishing the goal for treatment?

Roland D Donk1, Andre L M Verbeek2, Wim I M Verhagen3, Hans Groenewoud2, Allard T F Hosman4, Ronald H M A Bartels5,6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: It is difficult for clinicians to inform patients about the success rate of a treatment as a cervical anterior discectomy procedure. Ideally, a proportion of good outcome as rated by patients is known. Patient-reported outcome measurements are helpful. The purpose is to relate the difference in Neck Disability Index (NDI) after a cervical anterior discectomy procedure for single level cervical degenerative disc disease with the patients' rating of their actual clinical situation after long-term follow-up to define the substantial clinical benefit (SCB).
METHODS: After completion of the NDI, patients who were surgically treated for cervical single level degenerative disease were asked to complete a five-item Likert scale to rate their clinical situation. After dichotomisation of the outcome in good versus less than good, a cut-off value was defined by determining the value of the difference of NDI with the highest specificity and sensitivity. Funding was not obtained.
RESULTS: SCB for NDI after surgery for cervical single level degenerative disease should be set at ten with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 for sensitivity as well specificity.
CONCLUSIONS: The goal for each treatment is a good outcome. While comparing treatments for cervical degenerative disc disease only those with an SCB of ten will be relevant for the patient, as patients who achieved this difference in NDI rated their actual situation at long-term follow-up as good.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anterior cervical discectomy; NDI; Outcome; PROM; SCB; Substantial clinical benefit

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28803345     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5260-y

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


  11 in total

Review 1.  Minimal clinically important difference module: summary, recommendations, and research agenda.

Authors:  G Wells; J Anderson; D Beaton; N Bellamy; M Boers; C Bombardier; F Breedveld; A Carr; A Cranney; M Dougados; D Felson; J Kirwan; M Schiff; B Shea; L Simon; J Smolen; V Strand; P Tugwell; P van Riel; V A Welch
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.666

2.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Authors:  Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-10-16       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  The conduct of orthopaedic clinical trials.

Authors:  R L Fuson; M Sherman; J Van Vleet; T Wendt
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.

Authors:  R Jaeschke; J Singer; G H Guyatt
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-12

5.  Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion.

Authors:  Leah Y Carreon; Steven D Glassman; Mitchell J Campbell; Paul A Anderson
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 4.166

6.  The association between preoperative mental distress and patient-reported outcome measures in patients treated surgically for cervical radiculopathy.

Authors:  Martin Skeppholm; Roland Fransson; Margareta Hammar; Claes Olerud
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 4.166

7.  Maverick total disc arthroplasty performs well at 10 years follow-up: a prospective study with HRQL and balance analysis.

Authors:  N Plais; X Thevenot; A Cogniet; J Rigal; J C Le Huec
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-04-05       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis.

Authors:  Steven D Glassman; Anne G Copay; Sigurd H Berven; David W Polly; Brian R Subach; Leah Y Carreon
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Design of the PROCON trial: a prospective, randomized multi-center study comparing cervical anterior discectomy without fusion, with fusion or with arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ronald H M A Bartels; Roland Donk; Gert Jan van der Wilt; J André Grotenhuis; Dick Venderink
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2006-11-10       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  The Qualification of Outcome after Cervical Spine Surgery by Patients Compared to the Neck Disability Index.

Authors:  Roland Donk; Andre Verbeek; Wim Verhagen; Hans Groenewoud; Allard Hosman; Ronald Bartels
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.