Literature DB >> 35059861

Impact of radiologic variables on item responses of ODI, SRS22 and SF-36. in adult spinal deformity patients: differential item functioning (DIF) analysis results from a multi-center database.

D C Kieser1, S Yuksel2, L Boissiere3, C Yilgor4, D T Cawley3,4, K Hayashi3, A Alanay5, F S Kleinstueck6, F Pellise7, F J S Perez-Grueso8, Vital Jean-Marc3, A Bourghli3, E R Acaroglu9, I Obeid3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine if responses given to each question of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS22), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires are influenced by the radiological parameters.
METHODS: Patients enrolled in a multi-centre prospectively collected adult spinal deformity database who had complete SRS22, ODI and SF-36 data at baseline and at one-year follow-up were analysed. The presence of a differential item function of each question within each score in relation to radiological parameters was analysed using a mixed Rasch model with the radiological threshold value(s) determined.
RESULTS: Of those patients analysed (n = 1745; 1406 female, average age 51.0 ± 19.8 years), 944 were surgically and 801 were non-surgically treated. For the SRS22, questions (Q) 3, 5 and 18 were sensitive to almost all radiological parameters and the overall score was found sensitive to the Cobb angle. For the ODI, Q3, 6, 9 and 10 were not sensitive to any radiologic parameters whereas Q4 and 5 were sensitive to most. In contrast, only 3 of the SF-36 items were sensitive to radiological parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: 78% of the SRS-22, 60% of the ODI and 8% of the questions in the SF-36 are sensitive to radiological parameters. Sagittal imbalance is independently associated with a poor overall outcome, but affects mental status and function more than pain and self-image. The assembly of questions responsive to radiological parameters may be useful in establishing a connection between changes in radiologic parameters and HRQL.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cobb; Deformity; Scoliosis; Spine; Surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35059861     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-021-07088-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   2.721


  9 in total

1.  Likelihood of reaching minimal clinically important difference in adult spinal deformity: a comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment.

Authors:  Shian Liu; Frank Schwab; Justin S Smith; Eric Klineberg; Christopher P Ames; Gregory Mundis; Richard Hostin; Khaled Kebaish; Vedat Deviren; Munish Gupta; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Robert A Hart; Shay Bess; Virginie Lafage
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

2.  Rasch Trees: A New Method for Detecting Differential Item Functioning in the Rasch Model.

Authors:  Carolin Strobl; Julia Kopf; Achim Zeileis
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 2.500

3.  Adult spinal deformity surgical decision-making score : Part 1: development and validation of a scoring system to guide the selection of treatment modalities for patients below 40 years with adult spinal deformity.

Authors:  Takashi Fujishiro; Louis Boissière; Derek Thomas Cawley; Daniel Larrieu; Olivier Gille; Jean-Marc Vital; Ferran Pellisé; Francisco Javier Sanchez Pérez-Grueso; Frank Kleinstück; Emre Acaroglu; Ahmet Alanay; Ibrahim Obeid
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Adult spinal deformity surgical decision-making score. Part 2: development and validation of a scoring system to guide the selection of treatment modalities for patients above 40 years with adult spinal deformity.

Authors:  Takashi Fujishiro; Louis Boissière; Derek Thomas Cawley; Daniel Larrieu; Olivier Gille; Jean-Marc Vital; Ferran Pellisé; Francisco Javier Sanchez Pérez-Grueso; Frank Kleinstück; Emre Acaroglu; Ahmet Alanay; Ibrahim Obeid
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Incremental cost-effectiveness of adult spinal deformity surgery: observed quality-adjusted life years with surgery compared with predicted quality-adjusted life years without surgery.

Authors:  Ian McCarthy; Michael O'Brien; Christopher Ames; Chessie Robinson; Thomas Errico; David W Polly; Richard Hostin
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 4.047

6.  Factors influencing patient satisfaction after adult scoliosis and spinal deformity surgery.

Authors:  Kazunori Hayashi; Louis Boissière; Fernando Guevara-Villazón; Daniel Larrieu; Susana Núñez-Pereira; Anouar Bourghli; Olivier Gille; Jean-Marc Vital; Ferran Pellisé; Francisco Javier Sánchez Pérez-Grueso; Frank Kleinstück; Emre Acaroğlu; Ahmet Alanay; Ibrahim Obeid
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2019-05-10

7.  Adult spine deformity.

Authors:  Christopher R Good; Joshua D Auerbach; Patrick T O'Leary; Thomas C Schuler
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2011-12

Review 8.  Clinical and radiographic evaluation of the adult spinal deformity patient.

Authors:  Justin S Smith; Christopher I Shaffrey; Kai-Ming G Fu; Justin K Scheer; Shay Bess; Virginie Lafage; Frank Schwab; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  Neurosurg Clin N Am       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 2.509

9.  Reoperation rates and impact on outcome in a large, prospective, multicenter, adult spinal deformity database: clinical article.

Authors:  Justin K Scheer; Jessica A Tang; Justin S Smith; Eric Klineberg; Robert A Hart; Gregory M Mundis; Douglas C Burton; Richard Hostin; Michael F O'Brien; Shay Bess; Khaled M Kebaish; Vedat Deviren; Virginie Lafage; Frank Schwab; Christopher I Shaffrey; Christopher P Ames
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2013-08-23
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.