James E Archer1, Charles Baird1, Adrian Gardner2,3, Alison B Rushton4, Nicola R Heneghan5. 1. The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol Road South, Northfield, Birmingham, B31 2AP, UK. 2. The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol Road South, Northfield, Birmingham, B31 2AP, UK. adrian.gardner@nhs.net. 3. Centre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain (CPR Spine), School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. adrian.gardner@nhs.net. 4. School of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Canada. 5. Centre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain (CPR Spine), School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically review and synthesise the evidence on the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measure (PROMs) used to assess the quality of life in patients with adult scoliosis. METHOD: Based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines and a published protocol, a two-stage search was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). Stage one identified all studies of patients with adult scoliosis which included PROMs of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). Databases including AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO and Pubmed were searched from inception until 31st December 2020. This derived list of PROMs, was then utilised for a stage 2 search to identify studies which evaluated the measurement properties of the PROMs. Two reviewers independently performed the searches, study screening, selection and risk of bias assessment using the COSMIN tool. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Stage one yielded 16 PROMs of HR-QOL with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) the most used. Stage two identified three stage one PROMs that fulfilled eligibility criteria: SRS-22, ODI and SRS-22r; with five studies investigating measurement properties in an adult scoliosis population. The SRS-22 was the most comprehensively evaluated PROM in this cohort with very low-quality evidence indicating indeterminate reliability, sufficient construct validity and sufficient responsiveness of the SRS-22. There is very low-quality evidence indicating sufficient responsiveness of the ODI. There is very low-quality evidence indicating indeterminate cross-cultural validity for the SRS-22r. All other measurement properties in the SRS-22, ODI and SRS-22r have not been evaluated. CONCLUSION: A large number of PROMs are being utilised in the adult scoliosis population and of these, the most commonly utilised are the ODI and SRS-22. The SRS-22, ODI and SRS-22r are the only PROMs to have had their measurement properties evaluated in the adult scoliosis population. The findings of this systematic review are that there currently is not sufficient evidence on the measurement properties of any PROMs in adult scoliosis. Further research is now urgently required to assess the measurement properties of these PROMs.
PURPOSE: To systematically review and synthesise the evidence on the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measure (PROMs) used to assess the quality of life in patients with adult scoliosis. METHOD: Based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines and a published protocol, a two-stage search was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). Stage one identified all studies of patients with adult scoliosis which included PROMs of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). Databases including AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO and Pubmed were searched from inception until 31st December 2020. This derived list of PROMs, was then utilised for a stage 2 search to identify studies which evaluated the measurement properties of the PROMs. Two reviewers independently performed the searches, study screening, selection and risk of bias assessment using the COSMIN tool. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Stage one yielded 16 PROMs of HR-QOL with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) the most used. Stage two identified three stage one PROMs that fulfilled eligibility criteria: SRS-22, ODI and SRS-22r; with five studies investigating measurement properties in an adult scoliosis population. The SRS-22 was the most comprehensively evaluated PROM in this cohort with very low-quality evidence indicating indeterminate reliability, sufficient construct validity and sufficient responsiveness of the SRS-22. There is very low-quality evidence indicating sufficient responsiveness of the ODI. There is very low-quality evidence indicating indeterminate cross-cultural validity for the SRS-22r. All other measurement properties in the SRS-22, ODI and SRS-22r have not been evaluated. CONCLUSION: A large number of PROMs are being utilised in the adult scoliosis population and of these, the most commonly utilised are the ODI and SRS-22. The SRS-22, ODI and SRS-22r are the only PROMs to have had their measurement properties evaluated in the adult scoliosis population. The findings of this systematic review are that there currently is not sufficient evidence on the measurement properties of any PROMs in adult scoliosis. Further research is now urgently required to assess the measurement properties of these PROMs.
Authors: Jamie Terran; Brian J McHugh; Charla R Fischer; Baron Lonner; Daniel Warren; Steven Glassman; Keith Bridwell; Frank Schwab; Virginie Lafage Journal: Ochsner J Date: 2014
Authors: Jeb McAviney; Carrie Roberts; Bryony Sullivan; Alexander J Alevras; Petra L Graham; Benjamin Thomas Brown Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: K H Bridwell; H L Shufflebarger; L G Lenke; T G Lowe; R R Betz; G S Bassett Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2000-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Bassel G Diebo; Neil V Shah; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Feng Zhu; Dominique A Rothenfluh; Carl B Paulino; Frank J Schwab; Virginie Lafage Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ferran Pellisé; Alba Vila-Casademunt; Montse Ferrer; Montse Domingo-Sàbat; Juan Bagó; Francisco J S Pérez-Grueso; Ahmet Alanay; A F Mannion; Emre Acaroglu Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2014-09-14 Impact factor: 3.134