Marc L Schröder1, Marlies P de Wispelaere2, Victor E Staartjes3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Bergman Clinics, Rijksweg 69, 1411 GE Naarden, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Clinical Informatics, Bergman Clinics, Gooimeer 11, 1411 GE Naarden, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Bergman Clinics, Rijksweg 69, 1411 GE Naarden, The Netherlands; Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 3, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: victor.staartjes@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Long-term follow-up of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) is essential in both modern spinal care and research. Lack of time and staff are commonly reported barriers to implementing long-term follow-up of PROM. Automated and digital follow-up systems for PROM collection are seeing widespread use, yet their validity and comparative effectiveness have never been evaluated. PURPOSE: The present study aimed to assess the validity of digital follow-up systems in comparison with the conventional paper-based follow-up (PB-FU). STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected double follow-up data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent lumbar spinal fusion for spondylolisthesis or degenerative disc disease between 2013 and 2016 were included in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: The study determined the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain severity at baseline, 6 weeks, 12 months, and 24 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After lumbar spinal fusion surgery, a double follow-up of PROM was carried out by conventional PB-FU during clinical visits, while simultaneously completing an automatically dispatched digital follow-up questionnaire. As the primary end point, we assessed the intraindividual discrepancy in PROM between PB-FU and automated digital follow-up (AD-FU). RESULTS: Forty patients completed all parts of the dual follow-up trajectory and were analyzed. We detected no discrepancy in ODI or NRS for back and leg pain severity at any of the baseline, 6-week, 12-month, or 24 month follow-ups (all p>.05). This was confirmed in a sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of dual paper-based and digital follow-up after lumbar fusion surgery, patients report highly similar values using either method of follow-up. It appears that AD-FU without incentives produces lower response rates. To reassess the validity of these systems for data collection in spinal patient care, a prospective validation with higher statistical power is warranted.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Long-term follow-up of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) is essential in both modern spinal care and research. Lack of time and staff are commonly reported barriers to implementing long-term follow-up of PROM. Automated and digital follow-up systems for PROM collection are seeing widespread use, yet their validity and comparative effectiveness have never been evaluated. PURPOSE: The present study aimed to assess the validity of digital follow-up systems in comparison with the conventional paper-based follow-up (PB-FU). STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected double follow-up data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent lumbar spinal fusion for spondylolisthesis or degenerative disc disease between 2013 and 2016 were included in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: The study determined the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain severity at baseline, 6 weeks, 12 months, and 24 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After lumbar spinal fusion surgery, a double follow-up of PROM was carried out by conventional PB-FU during clinical visits, while simultaneously completing an automatically dispatched digital follow-up questionnaire. As the primary end point, we assessed the intraindividual discrepancy in PROM between PB-FU and automated digital follow-up (AD-FU). RESULTS: Forty patients completed all parts of the dual follow-up trajectory and were analyzed. We detected no discrepancy in ODI or NRS for back and leg pain severity at any of the baseline, 6-week, 12-month, or 24 month follow-ups (all p>.05). This was confirmed in a sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of dual paper-based and digital follow-up after lumbar fusion surgery, patients report highly similar values using either method of follow-up. It appears that AD-FU without incentives produces lower response rates. To reassess the validity of these systems for data collection in spinal patient care, a prospective validation with higher statistical power is warranted.
Authors: Francesco Langella; Paolo Barletta; Alice Baroncini; Matteo Agarossi; Laura Scaramuzzo; Andrea Luca; Roberto Bassani; Giuseppe M Peretti; Claudio Lamartina; Jorge H Villafañe; Pedro Berjano Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Ayesha Quddusi; Hubert A J Eversdijk; Anita M Klukowska; Marlies P de Wispelaere; Julius M Kernbach; Marc L Schröder; Victor E Staartjes Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Jonathan Acosta; Peter Tang; Steven Regal; Sam Akhavan; Alan Reynolds; Rebecca Schorr; Jon E Hammarstedt Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev Date: 2020-12-04
Authors: Victor E Staartjes; Granit Molliqaj; Paulien M van Kampen; Hubert A J Eversdijk; Aymeric Amelot; Christoph Bettag; Jasper F C Wolfs; Sophie Urbanski; Farman Hedayat; Carsten G Schneekloth; Mike Abu Saris; Michel Lefranc; Johann Peltier; Duccio Boscherini; Ingo Fiss; Bawarjan Schatlo; Veit Rohde; Yu-Mi Ryang; Sandro M Krieg; Bernhard Meyer; Nikolaus Kögl; Pierre-Pascal Girod; Claudius Thomé; Jos W R Twisk; Enrico Tessitore; Marc L Schröder Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-08 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Victor E Staartjes; Vittorio Stumpo; Julius M Kernbach; Anita M Klukowska; Pravesh S Gadjradj; Marc L Schröder; Anand Veeravagu; Martin N Stienen; Christiaan H B van Niftrik; Carlo Serra; Luca Regli Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 2.216