Literature DB >> 30010046

Minimum clinically important difference of the health-related quality of life scales in adult spinal deformity calculated by latent class analysis: is it appropriate to use the same values for surgical and nonsurgical patients?

Selcen Yuksel1, Selim Ayhan2, Vugar Nabiyev3, Montse Domingo-Sabat4, Alba Vila-Casademunt4, Ibrahim Obeid5, Francisco Sanchez Perez-Grueso6, Emre Acaroglu7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) parameters have been shown to be reliable and valid in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has become increasingly important to clinicians in evaluating patients with a threshold of improvement that is clinically relevant.
PURPOSE: To calculate MCID and minimum detectable change (MDC) values of total scores of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Physical Component Summary (PCS), Mental Component Summary (MCS) of the Short Form 36 (SF-36), and Scoliosis Research Society 22R (SRS-22R) in surgically and nonsurgically treated ASD patients who have completed an anchor question at pretreatment and 1-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: Prospective cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE: Surgical and nonsurgical patients from a multicenter ASD database. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported HRQOL measures (COMI, ODI, SF-36, SRS-22R, and anchor question).
METHODS: A total of 185 surgical and 86 nonsurgical patients from a multicenter ASD database who completed pretreatment and 1-year follow-up HRQOL scales and the anchor question at the first year follow-up were included. The anchor question was used to determine MCID for each HRQOL measure. MCIDs were calculated by an anchor-based method using latent class analysis (LCA) and MDCs by a distribution-based method.
RESULTS: All differences between means of baseline and first year postoperative total score measures for all scales demonstrated statistically significant improvements in the overall population as well as the surgically treated patients but not in the nonsurgical group. The calculated MDC and MCID values of HRQOL parameters in the entire study population were 1.34 and 2.62 for COMI, 10.65 and 14.31 for ODI, 6.09 and 7.33 for SF-36 PCS, 6.14 and 4.37 for SF-36 MCS, and 0.42 and 0.71 for SRS-22R. The calculated MCID values for surgical and non-surgical treatment groups were 2.76 versus 1.20 for COMI, 14.96 versus 2.45 for ODI, 7.83 versus 2.15 for SF-36 PCS, 5.14 versus 2.03 for SF-36 MCS, and 0.94 versus 0.11 for SRS-22R; the MDC values for surgical and nonsurgical treatment groups were 1.22 versus 1.51 for COMI, 10.27 versus 9.45 for ODI, 5.16 versus 6.77 for SF-36 PCS, 6.05 versus 5.67 for SF-36 MCS, and 0.38 versus 0.43 for SRS-22R.
CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that MCID calculations for the HRQOL scales in ASD using LCA yield values comparable to other studies that had used different methodologies. The most important finding was the significantly different MCIDs for COMI, ODI, SF-36 PCS and SRS-22 in the surgically and nonsurgically treated cohorts. This finding suggests that a universal MCID value, inherent to a specific HRQOL for an entire cohort of ASD may not exist. Use of different MCIDs for surgical and nonsurgical patients may be warranted.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adult spinal deformity; COMI; MCID; MDC; ODI; Outcome; SF-36; SRS-22R; Surgery

Year:  2018        PMID: 30010046     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.07.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  9 in total

1.  Multiple-rod constructs in adult spinal deformity surgery for pelvic-fixated long instrumentations: an integral matched cohort analysis.

Authors:  Fernando Guevara-Villazón; Louis Boissiere; Kazunori Hayashi; Daniel Larrieu; Soufiane Ghailane; Jean-Marc Vital; Olivier Gille; Vincent Pointillart; Ibrahim Obeid; Anouar Bourghli
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  What Are the Minimally Important Changes of Four Commonly Used Patient-reported Outcome Measures for 36 Hand and Wrist Condition-Treatment Combinations?

Authors:  Lisa Hoogendam; Jaimy Emerentiana Koopman; Yara Eline van Kooij; Reinier Feitz; Caroline Anna Hundepool; Chao Zhou; Harm Pieter Slijper; Ruud Willem Selles; Robbert Maarten Wouters
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-12-27       Impact factor: 4.755

3.  What Are the Minimum Clinically Important Differences in SF-36 Scores in Patients with Orthopaedic Oncologic Conditions?

Authors:  Koichi Ogura; Mohamed A Yakoub; Alexander B Christ; Tomohiro Fujiwara; Zarko Nikolic; Patrick J Boland; John H Healey
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 4.755

4.  Smartphone-Based Self-Assessment of Objective Functional Impairment (6-Minute Walking Test) in Patients Undergoing Epidural Steroid Injection.

Authors:  Anna Maria Zeitlberger; Marketa Sosnova; Michal Ziga; Valentin Steinsiepe; Oliver P Gautschi; Martin N Stienen; Nicolai Maldaner
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2020-03-31

5.  Predictive factors for successful non-operative treatment and achieving MCID improvement in health-related quality of life in adult spinal deformity.

Authors:  Jason Pui Yin Cheung; Hei Lung Wong; Prudence Wing Hang Cheung
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-08-22       Impact factor: 2.562

6.  Work ability and associated factors in people living with human T-cell leukemia virus type 1.

Authors:  Dayana Alves Costa; Fernando Martins Carvalho; Nicolle Melo Vieira; Gleicy Gabriela Spínola Carneiro Falcão; Viviane Almeida Sarmento; Carlos Brites; Liliane Lins-Kusterer
Journal:  Rev Soc Bras Med Trop       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 2.141

7.  Minimal clinically important differences in SF-36 global score: Current value in orthopedic oncology.

Authors:  Koichi Ogura; Meredith K Bartelstein; Mohamed A Yakoub; Zarko Nikolic; Patrick J Boland; John H Healey
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-12-20       Impact factor: 3.102

Review 8.  How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods.

Authors:  Yosra Mouelhi; Elisabeth Jouve; Christel Castelli; Stéphanie Gentile
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 3.186

Review 9.  Between-group minimally important change versus individual treatment responders.

Authors:  Ron D Hays; John Devin Peipert
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 4.147

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.