Literature DB >> 35524825

Responsiveness of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Index, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire, the 8-Item Short Form Health Survey, and the Euroqol 5 dimensions 5 level in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Takahito Fujimori1,2, Daisuke Ikegami3, Tsuyoshi Sugiura3, Hironobu Sakaura3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the responsiveness of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), the Oswestry Disability Index, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire, the visual analog scale (VAS), the 8-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-8), and the EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 level as methods of assessing outcomes of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.
METHODS: We analyzed 218 patients who had undergone lumbar surgery for spinal stenosis and completed one year of follow-up. The internal responsiveness of each questionnaire and any domains was assessed by the effect size and standardized response mean. External responsiveness was assessed by the Spearman rank correlation coefficient and the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve.
RESULTS: The most responsive assessments were "symptom severity" and "physical function" on the ZCQ, "walking ability" on the JOABPEQ, "leg pain" on the VAS, and "social function" on the JOABPEQ. The moderately responsive assessments were the physical component summary on the SF-8, the ODI, the EQ5D-5L, "low back pain" on the JOABPEQ, and "leg numbness" on the VAS. The least responsive assessments were "low back pain" on the VAS, "mental health" and "lumbar function" on the JOABPEQ, and the mental component summary on the SF-8.
CONCLUSIONS: Because of its high responsiveness, "symptom severity" on the ZCQ is recommended as a primary tool for assessing outcome when designing prospective studies for lumbar spinal stenosis.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EQ5D-5L; JOABPEQ; Oswestry Disability Index; Responsiveness; Zurich Claudication Questionnaire

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35524825     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-022-07236-5

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


  26 in total

1.  JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ)/JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ). The report on the development of revised versions. April 16, 2007. The Subcommittee of the Clinical Outcome Committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association on Low Back Pain and Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation.

Authors:  Mitsuru Fukui; Kazuhiro Chiba; Mamoru Kawakami; Shinichi Kikuchi; Shinichi Konno; Masabumi Miyamoto; Atsushi Seichi; Tadashi Shimamura; Osamu Shirado; Toshihiko Taguchi; Kazuhisa Takahashi; Katsushi Takeshita; Toshikazu Tani; Yoshiaki Toyama; Kazuo Yonenobu; Eiji Wada; Takashi Tanaka; Yoshio Hirota
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 1.601

2.  Cost-effectiveness of lumbar fenestration surgery in the Japanese universal health insurance system.

Authors:  Takahito Fujimori; Toshitada Miwa; Motoki Iwasaki; Takenori Oda
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 1.601

Review 3.  CLINICAL PRACTICE. Herniated Lumbar Intervertebral Disk.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Cost-effectiveness of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the Japanese universal health insurance system.

Authors:  Takahito Fujimori; Toshitada Miwa; Motoki Iwasaki; Takenori Oda
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 1.601

5.  Comparison of Value Set Based on DCE and/or TTO Data: Scoring for EQ-5D-5L Health States in Japan.

Authors:  Takeru Shiroiwa; Shunya Ikeda; Shinichi Noto; Ataru Igarashi; Takashi Fukuda; Shinya Saito; Kojiro Shimozuma
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 5.725

6.  Psychometric properties of selected tests in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Joshua A Cleland; Julie M Whitman; Janet L Houser; Robert S Wainner; John D Childs
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 4.166

7.  A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Authors:  Peter Försth; Gylfi Ólafsson; Thomas Carlsson; Anders Frost; Fredrik Borgström; Peter Fritzell; Patrik Öhagen; Karl Michaëlsson; Bengt Sandén
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Laminectomy plus Fusion versus Laminectomy Alone for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Zoher Ghogawala; James Dziura; William E Butler; Feng Dai; Norma Terrin; Subu N Magge; Jean-Valery C E Coumans; J Fred Harrington; Sepideh Amin-Hanjani; J Sanford Schwartz; Volker K H Sonntag; Fred G Barker; Edward C Benzel
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Prevalence of low back pain by anatomic location and intensity in an occupational population.

Authors:  Matthew S Thiese; Kurt T Hegmann; Eric M Wood; Arun Garg; J Steven Moore; Jay Kapellusch; James Foster; Ulrike Ott
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 2.362

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.