Literature DB >> 7490600

Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

G Stucki1, M H Liang, A H Fossel, J N Katz.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the relative responsiveness of a condition-specific spinal stenosis measure and two generic health status measures for outcome assessment of surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, and to examine whether responsiveness statistics and measures of the ability to distinguish clinically important improvement rank the instruments consistently. Physical function and symptom severity scales of the spinal stenosis measure were compared to the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) and the Roland scale, which is derived from the SIP. Responsiveness was calculated with the standardized response mean, the effect size, and Guyatt's responsiveness statistic. The discriminative ability of the instruments to distinguish patients who improved from those who did not was assessed using satisfaction with surgery as an external criterion. Minimal clinically relevant improvement was estimated using patient satisfaction as the external criterion. All responsiveness statistics revealed the same order of responsiveness; the physical function scale (SRM = 1.07) and symptom severity scales (SRM = 0.96) were more responsive than the Roland scale (SRM = 0.77) which was only slightly more responsive than the SIP (SRM = 0.69). Strikingly, the physical dimension of the SIP (SRM = 0.62) was even less responsive than the global SIP. The shape of and the area under the ROC curves showed that the physical function and symptom severity scales discriminate better between satisfied and unsatisfied patients than the Roland scale and SIP. The sensitivity to detect clinically important changes was somewhat lower at the ends of the scales, especially for the SIP and the Roland scale. Statistical approaches that assess the ability to distinguish clinically important changes and overall responsiveness statistics ranked the measures consistently. On the basis of these findings, we suggest that a condition-specific spinal stenosis measure is preferable as the primary end point in evaluative studies of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7490600     DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(95)00054-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  75 in total

Review 1.  Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II.

Authors:  G Samsa; D Edelman; M L Rothman; G R Williams; J Lipscomb; D Matchar
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation.

Authors:  C B Terwee; F W Dekker; W M Wiersinga; M F Prummel; P M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Prospective versus retrospective measurement of change in health status: a community based study in Geneva, Switzerland.

Authors:  T V Perneger; J F Etter; A Rougemont
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  A new high-flexion knee scoring system to eliminate the ceiling effect.

Authors:  Sang-Eun Na; Chul-Won Ha; Choong-Hee Lee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Responsiveness of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire in women undergoing treatment for pelvic floor disorders.

Authors:  Symphorosa Shing Chee Chan; Rachel Yau Kar Cheung; Beatrice Pui Yee Lai; Lai Loi Lee; Kwong Wai Choy; Tony Kwok Hung Chung
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey.

Authors:  Oriol Cunillera; Ricard Tresserras; Luis Rajmil; Gemma Vilagut; Pilar Brugulat; Mike Herdman; Anna Mompart; Antonia Medina; Yolanda Pardo; Jordi Alonso; John Brazier; Montse Ferrer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Does the wait for lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis surgery have a detrimental effect on patient outcomes? A prospective observational study.

Authors:  Christopher S Bailey; Kevin R Gurr; Stewart I Bailey; David Taylor; M Patricia Rosas-Arellano; Corinne Tallon; Yves Bureau; Jennifer C Urquhart
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2016-04-28

8.  Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion.

Authors:  Guang Yong Zou
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian version of the spinal stenosis measure.

Authors:  Elisabeth Thornes; Margreth Grotle
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-01-12       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  A prospective randomized multi-center study for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with the X STOP interspinous implant: 1-year results.

Authors:  J F Zucherman; K Y Hsu; C A Hartjen; T F Mehalic; D A Implicito; M J Martin; D R Johnson; G A Skidmore; P P Vessa; J W Dwyer; S Puccio; J C Cauthen; R M Ozuna
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2003-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.