Literature DB >> 8779009

Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis.

G Stucki1, L Daltroy, M H Liang, S J Lipson, A H Fossel, J N Katz.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: The measurement properties and validity of a newly developed patient questionnaire for the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis was tested in an ongoing prospective multicenter observational study of patients undergoing decompressive surgery in three teaching hospitals.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study was to develop a short, self-administered questionnaire on symptom severity, physical functional status, and patient satisfaction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The measure is intended to complement existing generic measures of spinal-related disability and health status. The questionnaire includes three scales with seven questions on symptom severity, five on physical function, and six on satisfaction.
METHODS: The internal consistency of the scales was assessed with Cronbach's coefficient alpha on cross-sectional data from 193 patients before surgery. The test-retest reliability was assessed on data from a random sample of 23 patients using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. The responsiveness was assessed on 130 patients with 6-month follow-up data using the standardized response mean.
RESULTS: The test-retest reliability of the scales ranged from 0.82 to 0.96, the internal consistency from 0.64 to 0.92, and the responsiveness from 0.96 to 1.07. The direction, statistical significance, and strength of hypothesized relationships with external criteria were as expected.
CONCLUSIONS: This short self-administered spinal stenosis measure is reproducible, internally consistent, valid, and highly responsive. It can be used to complement generic instruments in outcome assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8779009     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199604010-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  92 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Patient-based outcomes for the operative treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Samo K Fokter; Scott A Yerby
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Exploring the expectation-actuality discrepancy: a systematic review of the impact of preoperative expectations on satisfaction and patient reported outcomes in spinal surgery.

Authors:  Christopher D Witiw; Alireza Mansouri; Francois Mathieu; Farshad Nassiri; Jetan H Badhiwala; Richard G Fessler
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 3.042

5.  Clinical and neuropsychiatric correlates of lumbar spinal surgery in older adults: results of a pilot study.

Authors:  Jordan F Karp; Jonathan McGovern; Megan M Marron; Peter Gerszten; Debra K Weiner; David Okonkwo; Adam S Kanter
Journal:  Pain Manag       Date:  2016-04-22

6.  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

7.  What is the minimum clinically important difference in grip strength?

Authors:  Jae Kwang Kim; Min Gyue Park; Sung Joon Shin
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Reliability of the clinical examination in the diagnosis of neurogenic versus vascular claudication.

Authors:  Andrew J Haig; Paul Park; Peter K Henke; Karen S J Yamakawa; Christy Tomkins-Lane; Juan Valdivia; Sierra Loar
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2013-09-14       Impact factor: 4.166

9.  Somatic comorbidity and younger age are associated with life dissatisfaction among patients with lumbar spinal stenosis before surgical treatment.

Authors:  Sanna Sinikallio; Timo Aalto; Olavi Airaksinen; Arto Herno; Heikki Kröger; Sakari Savolainen; Veli Turunen; Heimo Viinamäki
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-03-15       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  The Felix-trial. Double-blind randomization of interspinous implant or bony decompression for treatment of spinal stenosis related intermittent neurogenic claudication.

Authors:  Wouter A Moojen; Mark P Arts; Ronald Brand; Bart W Koes; Wilco C Peul
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.