Literature DB >> 29732429

Determination of minimally clinically important differences for JOABPEQ measure after discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation.

Parisa Azimi1, Taravat Yazdanian2, Edward C Benzel3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is crucial to define if changes in patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure correspond to relevant clinical improvements. Aim of this study was to determine minimally clinically important differences (MCID) of the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) in patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) to assess surgical success.
METHODS: A total of 127 patients with LDH consecutively referred to our clinic were enrolled into this prospective study between March 2012 and August 2015. All participants completed the JOABPEQ and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score before surgery, and at 1 year after surgery. Surgical success was defined based on clinical consensus of the team and be used as anchor. The MCID value of the JOABPEQ subscales were estimated using two anchor-based methods: (I) average change procedure (responsiveness); and (II) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 51.2±9.4 years, and there were 68 (53.5%) male. A total of 83.5% (106 cases) showed improvement based on the clinical consensus of the spine surgeon team at last follow-up. To assess surgical success, the two MCID calculation methods generated two optimal prediction thresholds on the JOABPEQ subscales (low back pain: 19.1, 22.4; lumbar function: 21.3, 24.2; walking ability: 24.5, 27.9; social life function: 14.3, 17.1; and mental health: 12.8, 14.8) for ROC analysis and average change procedure, respectively (P<0.002 for all of subscales in two methods). For all five subscales, the sensitivity and specificity were between 61.2 and 81.1 with AUC greater than 0.70.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the value of the MCID to assess surgical success for the JOABPEQ subscales in patients with LDH. This estimate may be a useful tool in clinical practice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ); Lumbar disc herniation (LDH); minimally clinically important difference (MCID); receiver operating characteristic analysis (ROC analysis); surgical success

Year:  2018        PMID: 29732429      PMCID: PMC5911764          DOI: 10.21037/jss.2018.03.11

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2414-4630


  24 in total

1.  Nomenclature and classification of lumbar disc pathology. Recommendations of the Combined task Forces of the North American Spine Society, American Society of Spine Radiology, and American Society of Neuroradiology.

Authors:  D F Fardon; P C Milette
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Microendoscopic versus open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective randomised study.

Authors:  Bhavuk Garg; Upendra Bidre Nagraja; Arvind Jayaswal
Journal:  J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 1.118

Review 3.  Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.

Authors:  Anne G Copay; Brian R Subach; Steven D Glassman; David W Polly; Thomas C Schuler
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-04-02       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 4.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Dennis Revicki; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Jeff Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ)/JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ). The report on the development of revised versions. April 16, 2007. The Subcommittee of the Clinical Outcome Committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association on Low Back Pain and Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation.

Authors:  Mitsuru Fukui; Kazuhiro Chiba; Mamoru Kawakami; Shinichi Kikuchi; Shinichi Konno; Masabumi Miyamoto; Atsushi Seichi; Tadashi Shimamura; Osamu Shirado; Toshihiko Taguchi; Kazuhisa Takahashi; Katsushi Takeshita; Toshikazu Tani; Yoshiaki Toyama; Kazuo Yonenobu; Eiji Wada; Takashi Tanaka; Yoshio Hirota
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 1.601

6.  Clinimetrics Corner: The Minimal Clinically Important Change Score (MCID): A Necessary Pretense.

Authors:  Chad E Cook
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2008

Review 7.  Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores.

Authors:  P W Stratford; J M Binkley; D L Riddle
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1996-10

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.  How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure.

Authors:  Jan L Brozek; Gordon H Guyatt; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  Can we define success criteria for lumbar disc surgery? : estimates for a substantial amount of improvement in core outcome measures.

Authors:  Tore Solberg; Lars Gunnar Johnsen; Øystein P Nygaard; Margreth Grotle
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  4 in total

1.  Reliability Analysis of Deep Learning Algorithms for Reporting of Routine Lumbar MRI Scans.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Narendran Muraleedharan; Steven Allen Eddy; Vikram Sobti; Brian D Reece; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Sandeep Shah
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

2.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures with the Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression for Lateral Recess and Foraminal Stenosis.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Paulo Sérgio Teixeira DE Carvalho; Paulo DE Carvalho; Anthony Yeung
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-04-30

3.  Effect of Tai Chi alone or as additional therapy on low back pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Jiawei Qin; Yi Zhang; Lijian Wu; Zexiang He; Jia Huang; Jing Tao; Lidian Chen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 1.817

4.  Practical issues encountered while determining Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Authors:  Pascal Woaye-Hune; Jean-Benoit Hardouin; Paul-Antoine Lehur; Guillaume Meurette; Antoine Vanier
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 3.186

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.