Literature DB >> 35821173

The minimal important change for the EQ VAS based on the SF-36 health transition item: observations from 25772 spine surgery procedures.

Anders Joelson1, Fredrik Nerelius2, Freyr Gauti Sigmundsson2, Jan Karlsson3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The EQ VAS is an integral part of EQ-5D, a commonly used instrument for health-related quality of life assessment. This study aimed to calculate the minimal important change (MIC) thresholds for the EQ VAS for improvement and deterioration after surgery for disk herniation or spinal stenosis.
METHODS: Patients, who were surgically treated for disk herniation or spinal stenosis between 2007 and 2016, were recruited from the Swedish spine register. Preoperative and 1-year postoperative data for a total of 25772 procedures were available for analysis. We used two anchor-based methods to estimate MIC for EQ VAS: (1) a predictive model based on logistic regression and (2) receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. The SF-36 health transition item was used as anchor.
RESULTS: The EQ VAS MIC threshold for improvement after disk herniation surgery ranged from 8.25 to 11.8 while the corresponding value for deterioration ranged from - 6.17 to 0.5. For spinal stenosis surgery the corresponding MIC values ranged from 10.5 to 14.5 and - 7.16 to - 6.5 respectively. There were moderate negative correlations (disk herniation - 0.47, spinal stenosis - 0.46) between the 1 year change in the EQ VAS and the SF-36 health transition item (MIC anchor).
CONCLUSIONS: For EQ VAS, we recommend a MIC threshold of 12 points for improvement after surgery for disk herniation or spinal stenosis, whereas the corresponding threshold for deterioration is - 7 points. There are marked differences between the EQ VAS MIC for improvement and deterioration after surgery for disk herniation or spinal stenosis. The MIC value varied depending on the method used for MIC estimation.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Disk herniation; EQ VAS; EQ-5D; Health transition item; MCID; MIC; ROC; SF-36; Spinal stenosis

Year:  2022        PMID: 35821173     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-022-03182-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   3.440


  30 in total

1.  EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life.

Authors: 
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 2.980

2.  Predicting clinical outcome and length of sick leave after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in Sweden: a multi-register evaluation.

Authors:  Hanna Iderberg; Carl Willers; Fredrik Borgström; Rune Hedlund; Olle Hägg; Hans Möller; Ewald Ornstein; Bengt Sandén; Holger Stalberg; Hans Torevall-Larsson; Tycho Tullberg; Peter Fritzell
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Combining clinical relevance and statistical significance for evaluating quality of life changes in the individual patient.

Authors:  C B Terwee; B Terluin; D L Knol; H C W de Vet
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Dennis Revicki; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Jeff Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Statistics In Brief: Minimum Clinically Important Difference-Availability of Reliable Estimates.

Authors:  Mitchell Maltenfort; Claudio Díaz-Ledezma
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  Minimum Clinically Important Difference: Current Trends in the Spine Literature.

Authors:  Andrew S Chung; Anne G Copay; Neil Olmscheid; David Campbell; J Brock Walker; Norman Chutkan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2017-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness.

Authors:  H Beckerman; M E Roebroeck; G J Lankhorst; J G Becher; P D Bezemer; A L Verbeek
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.

Authors:  R Jaeschke; J Singer; G H Guyatt
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-12

9.  The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey--I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden.

Authors:  M Sullivan; J Karlsson; J E Ware
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 4.634

10.  Diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic plots.

Authors:  D G Altman; J M Bland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-07-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.