Lananh Nguyen1, Nicole Agaronnik2, Marco L Ferrone1, Jeffrey N Katz1, Andrew J Schoenfeld3. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA. 2. Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Electronic address: ajschoen@neomed.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Studies regarding treatment of spinal metastases are critical to evidence-based decision-making. However, variation exists in how a key outcome, ambulatory function, is assessed. PURPOSE: To characterize the sources and tools investigators have used to evaluate ambulatory function as an outcome following treatment of spinal metastases. We also sought to understand the ways ambulatory function has been conceptualized in prior studies. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature. PATIENT SAMPLE: We identified 44 published studies for inclusion. Samples within these investigations ranged from 20 to 2,096 subjects. OUTCOME MEASURES: We describe the methods investigators have used to evaluate ambulatory function following treatment for spinal metastases. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science following PRISMA guidelines. We included studies that consisted of adult patients receiving operative or non-operative treatment for spinal metastases. We also required that study investigators specified post-treatment ambulatory function as an outcome. We recorded year of publication, study design, types of spinal metastases included in the study, treatments employed, and sample size. We also described the source (medical record, study-specific observer and/or provider, patient and/or participant), tool (standardized measure, quantitative, qualitative) and concept (eg, ambulatory vs. non-ambulatory; independent ambulation vs. ambulatory with assistance vs. non-ambulatory) used to assess ambulatory function. RESULTS: We found the plurality of studies relied on medical record documentation as their source. Amongst prospective studies, only a minority used a quantitative measure (eg, prespecified degree of walking ability) to assess ambulatory function. Most studies conceptualized ambulatory function as a dichotomized outcome, typically ambulatory versus non-ambulatory or a similar equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation exists in how ambulatory function is defined in studies involving patients with spinal metastases. We suggest several improvements that will allow a more robust assessment of the quality and quantity of ambulatory function among patients treated for spinal metastases.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Studies regarding treatment of spinal metastases are critical to evidence-based decision-making. However, variation exists in how a key outcome, ambulatory function, is assessed. PURPOSE: To characterize the sources and tools investigators have used to evaluate ambulatory function as an outcome following treatment of spinal metastases. We also sought to understand the ways ambulatory function has been conceptualized in prior studies. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature. PATIENT SAMPLE: We identified 44 published studies for inclusion. Samples within these investigations ranged from 20 to 2,096 subjects. OUTCOME MEASURES: We describe the methods investigators have used to evaluate ambulatory function following treatment for spinal metastases. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science following PRISMA guidelines. We included studies that consisted of adult patients receiving operative or non-operative treatment for spinal metastases. We also required that study investigators specified post-treatment ambulatory function as an outcome. We recorded year of publication, study design, types of spinal metastases included in the study, treatments employed, and sample size. We also described the source (medical record, study-specific observer and/or provider, patient and/or participant), tool (standardized measure, quantitative, qualitative) and concept (eg, ambulatory vs. non-ambulatory; independent ambulation vs. ambulatory with assistance vs. non-ambulatory) used to assess ambulatory function. RESULTS: We found the plurality of studies relied on medical record documentation as their source. Amongst prospective studies, only a minority used a quantitative measure (eg, prespecified degree of walking ability) to assess ambulatory function. Most studies conceptualized ambulatory function as a dichotomized outcome, typically ambulatory versus non-ambulatory or a similar equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation exists in how ambulatory function is defined in studies involving patients with spinal metastases. We suggest several improvements that will allow a more robust assessment of the quality and quantity of ambulatory function among patients treated for spinal metastases.
Authors: Derek G Ju; Patricia L Zadnik; Mari L Groves; Lee Hwang; Paul E Kaloostian; Jean-Paul Wolinksy; Timothy F Witham; Ali Bydon; Ziya L Gokaslan; Daniel M Sciubba Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: P H Graham; A Capp; G Delaney; G Goozee; B Hickey; S Turner; L Browne; C Milross; A Wirth Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Andrew J Schoenfeld; Justin A Blucher; Lauren B Barton; Joseph H Schwab; Tracy A Balboni; John H Chi; John H Shin; James D Kang; Mitchel B Harris; Marco L Ferrone Journal: Spine J Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Lauren B Barton; Kaetlyn R Arant; Justin A Blucher; Danielle L Sarno; Kristin J Redmond; Tracy A Balboni; Matthew Colman; C Rory Goodwin; Ilya Laufer; Rick Placide; John H Shin; Daniel M Sciubba; Elena Losina; Jeffrey N Katz; Andrew J Schoenfeld Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 6.558