BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patient-Reported Measured Outcomes (PROMs) are essential to gain a full understanding of a patient's condition, and in spine surgery, these questionnaires are of help when tailoring a surgical strategy. Electronic registries allow for a systematic collection and storage of PROMs, making them readily available for clinical and research purposes. This study aimed to investigate the reliability between the electronic and paper form of ODI (Oswestry Disability Index), SF-36 (Short Form Health Survey 36) and COMI-back (Core Outcome Measures Index for the back) questionnaires. METHODS: A prospective analysis was performed of ODI, SF-36 and COMI-back questionnaires collected in paper and electronic format in two patients' groups: Pre-Operatively (PO) or at follow-up (FU). All patients, in both groups, completed the three questionnaires in paper and electronic form. The correlation between both methods was assessed with the Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: The data from 100 non-consecutive, volunteer patients with a mean age of 55.6 ± 15.0 years were analysed. For all of the three PROMs, the reliability between paper and electronic questionnaires results was excellent (ICC: ODI = 0.96; COMI = 0.98; SF36-MCS = 0.98; SF36-PCS = 0.98. For all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study proved an excellent reliability between the electronic and paper versions of ODI, SF-36 and COMI-back questionnaires collected using a spine registry. This validation paves the way for stronger widespread use of electronic PROMs. They offer numerous advantages in terms of accessibility, storage, and data analysis compared to paper questionnaires.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Patient-Reported Measured Outcomes (PROMs) are essential to gain a full understanding of a patient's condition, and in spine surgery, these questionnaires are of help when tailoring a surgical strategy. Electronic registries allow for a systematic collection and storage of PROMs, making them readily available for clinical and research purposes. This study aimed to investigate the reliability between the electronic and paper form of ODI (Oswestry Disability Index), SF-36 (Short Form Health Survey 36) and COMI-back (Core Outcome Measures Index for the back) questionnaires. METHODS: A prospective analysis was performed of ODI, SF-36 and COMI-back questionnaires collected in paper and electronic format in two patients' groups: Pre-Operatively (PO) or at follow-up (FU). All patients, in both groups, completed the three questionnaires in paper and electronic form. The correlation between both methods was assessed with the Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: The data from 100 non-consecutive, volunteer patients with a mean age of 55.6 ± 15.0 years were analysed. For all of the three PROMs, the reliability between paper and electronic questionnaires results was excellent (ICC: ODI = 0.96; COMI = 0.98; SF36-MCS = 0.98; SF36-PCS = 0.98. For all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study proved an excellent reliability between the electronic and paper versions of ODI, SF-36 and COMI-back questionnaires collected using a spine registry. This validation paves the way for stronger widespread use of electronic PROMs. They offer numerous advantages in terms of accessibility, storage, and data analysis compared to paper questionnaires.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical outcome; Electronic data collection; Quality of life score; Spine registry; Validation
Authors: Tej D Azad; Maziyar Kalani; Terrill Wolf; Alisa Kearney; Yohan Lee; Lisa Flannery; David Chen; Ryan Berroya; Matthew Eisenberg; Jon Park; Lawrence Shuer; Alison Kerr; John K Ratliff Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2015-10-02
Authors: Andrea Zanirato; Marco Damilano; Matteo Formica; Andrea Piazzolla; Alessio Lovi; Jorge Hugo Villafañe; Pedro Berjano Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Alice Baroncini; Filippo Migliorini; Francesco Langella; Paolo Barletta; Per Trobisch; Riccardo Cecchinato; Marco Damilano; Emanuele Quarto; Claudio Lamartina; Pedro Berjano Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Pedro Berjano; Francesco Langella; Luca Ventriglia; Domenico Compagnone; Paolo Barletta; David Huber; Francesca Mangili; Ginevra Licandro; Fabio Galbusera; Andrea Cina; Tito Bassani; Claudio Lamartina; Laura Scaramuzzo; Roberto Bassani; Marco Brayda-Bruno; Jorge Hugo Villafañe; Lorenzo Monti; Laura Azzimonti Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-12-16
Authors: Francesco Langella; Daniele Vanni; Morten Høgh; Thorvaldur Skuli Palsson; Steffan Wittrup McPhee Christensen; Pablo Bellosta-López; Jorge Hugo Villafañe; Palle Schlott Jensen; Priscila de Brito Silva; Pablo Herrero; Paolo Barletta; Victor Domenéch-García; Pedro Berjano Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 3.006