Literature DB >> 33717946

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

Karthik Vishwanathan1, Ian Braithwaite2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Validity and responsiveness of Oswestry disability index (ODI), Roland Morris disability questionnaires (RMDQ), Short Form-12 Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS) and Short Form-12 Mental Component Score (SF-12 MCS) in patients undergoing open decompression for lumbar canal stenosis has not been previously reported.
METHODS: Outcome assessment was prospectively evaluated using the ODI, RMDQ, SF-12 PCS and SF-12 MCS pre-intervention and at average follow-up of three months post-intervention. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the association between change in values of ODI, RMDQ, SF-12 PCS and SF-12 MCS. Distribution based methods (Effect size [ES], standardised response mean [SRM]) and anchor based method (Area under the curve [AUC] of receiver operating curve [ROC]) were used to determine responsiveness. AUC value ≥ 0.70 is considered as adequate level of responsiveness and the outcome instrument with the largest AUC is considered to be the most responsive outcome instrument.
RESULTS: This study included 77 participants. Responsiveness was assessed at a mean follow-up of 12 weeks postoperatively. There was significant strong correlation between ODI and RMDQ (r = 0.65, p < 0.0001). The ES of ODI, RMDQ, SF-12 PCS and SF-12 MCS were 1.54, 1.48, 1.85 and 0.51 respectively. The SRM of RMDQ, ODI, SF-12 PCS and SF-12 MCS were 1.22, 1.17, 1.0 and 0.47 respectively. AUC of ODI, RMDQ, SF-12 PCS and SF-12 MCS were 0.83-0.88, 0.82 to 0.86, 0.78 to 0.81 and 0.69 to 0.70 respectively.
CONCLUSION: It is recommended to use either ODI or RMDQ as region specific patient reported outcome instrument and SF-12 PCS as a health related quality of life outcome instrument to evaluate outcome after decompressive laminectomy for lumbar canal stenosis.
© 2021 The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  AUC, Area under the curve; ES, Effect Size; HRQoL, Health Related Quality of Life; Lumbar stenosis; MCID, Minimal Clinically Important Difference; NRS, Numerical Rating Scale; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; Oswestry disability index; RMDQ, Roland Morris disability questionnaires; ROC, Receiver Operating Curve; Responsiveness; Roland morris disability questionnaire; SF-12; SF-12 PCS, Short Form-12 Physical Component Score; SF12-MCS, Short Form-12 Mental Component Score; SRM, Standardised Response Mean; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale; Validity

Year:  2021        PMID: 33717946      PMCID: PMC7920003          DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2021.01.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0976-5662


  39 in total

Review 1.  The Oswestry Disability Index.

Authors:  J C Fairbank; P B Pynsent
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.

Authors:  Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-08-24       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: assessment of functional outcome following lumbar fusion.

Authors:  Zoher Ghogawala; Daniel K Resnick; William C Watters; Praveen V Mummaneni; Andrew T Dailey; Tanvir F Choudhri; Jason C Eck; Alok Sharan; Michael W Groff; Jeffrey C Wang; Sanjay S Dhall; Michael G Kaiser
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2014-07

Review 5.  A review of culturally adapted versions of the Oswestry Disability Index: the adaptation process, construct validity, test-retest reliability and internal consistency.

Authors:  Peter J Sheahan; Erika J Nelson-Wong; Steven L Fischer
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 3.033

6.  SF-6D values stratified by specific diagnostic indication.

Authors:  Leah Y Carreon; Mladen Djurasovic; Chelsea E Canan; Lauren O Burke; Steven D Glassman
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  The Influence of Single-level Versus Multilevel Decompression on the Outcome in Multisegmental Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Analysis of the Lumbar Spinal Outcome Study (LSOS) Data.

Authors:  Nils H Ulrich; Jakob M Burgstaller; Ulrike Held; Sebastian Winklhofer; Mazda Farshad; Giuseppe Pichierri; Johann Steurer; François Porchet
Journal:  Clin Spine Surg       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.876

Review 8.  Meta-analysis identifies Back Pain Questionnaire reliability influenced more by instrument than study design or population.

Authors:  Jonathan H Geere; Jo-Anne L Geere; Paul R Hunter
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  G Stucki; M H Liang; A H Fossel; J N Katz
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Psychometric Assessment of the Japanese Version of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ): Reliability and Validity.

Authors:  Nobuhiro Hara; Ko Matsudaira; Kazuhiro Masuda; Juichi Tohnosu; Katsushi Takeshita; Atsuki Kobayashi; Motoaki Murakami; Naohiro Kawamura; Kiyohumi Yamakawa; Sei Terayama; Satoshi Ogihara; Hiroo Shiono; Jiro Morii; Keiji Hayakawa; So Kato; Kozo Nakamura; Hiroyuki Oka; Takayuki Sawada; Kyoko Inuzuka; Norimasa Kikuchi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.