Methodological approaches to developing criteria for improvement in lumbar spinal stenosis surgery

Spine

Volumn 31, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 1276-1280

  Tuli, Sagun K ^a   Yerby, Scott A ^b,c,d   Katz, Jeffrey N ^a,e  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b San Francisco Orthopaedic Residency Program   (United States)

^c VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d St Francis Medical Technologies   (United States)

^e HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Laminectomy; Lumbar spinal stenosis; Minimal clinically important difference; Neurogenic intermittent claudication; Outcomes; Receiver operator characteristic; Sensitivity; Specificity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRIGHAM SPINAL STENOSIS QUESTIONNAIRE; DECOMPRESSION SURGERY; DISEASE SEVERITY; HUMAN; LUMBAR SPINE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NON INVASIVE MEASUREMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPINE FUSION; SURGICAL APPROACH; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERTEBRAL CANAL STENOSIS;

AGED; DECOMPRESSION, SURGICAL; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPINAL STENOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33646764205     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000217615.20018.6c     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Pollard WE, et al. The sickness impact profile: validation of a health status measure. Med Care 1976;14:57-67.
2. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. The Oswestry low-back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66:271-3.
3. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain: I. Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 1983;8:141-4.
4. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Brick GW, et al. Clinical correlates of patient satisfaction after laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1995;20:1155-60.
5. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Lew RA, et al. Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes. Spine 1997;22:1123-31.
6. Stucki G, Daltroy L, Liang MH, et al. Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1996;21:796-803.
7. Hansraj KK, O'Leary PF, Cammisa FP Jr, et al. Decompression, fusion, and instrumentation surgery for complex lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop 2001;384:18-25.
8. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Chang LC, et al. Seven- to 10-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1996;21:92-8.
9. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Larson MG, et al. The outcome of decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbar stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:809-16.
10. Katz JN, Stucki G, Lipson SJ, et al. Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1999;24:2229-33.
11. Kornblum MB, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, et al. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis. Spine 2004;29:726-33; discussion 733-4.
12. Pratt RK, Fairbank JC, Virr A. The reliability of the Shuttle Walking Test, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, the Oxford Spinal Stenosis Score, and the Oswestry Disability Index in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 2002;27:84-91.
13. Simotas AC. Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop 2001;384:153-61.
14. Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA, et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results. Spine 2005;30:1351-8.
15. Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, et al. Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:1369-78.
16. Bombardier C, Hayden J, Beaton DE. Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures. J Rheumatol 2001;28:431-8.
17. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 1986;39:897-906.
18. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.
19. Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 2001;28:406-12.
20. Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 1996;65:71-6.
21. Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2003;12:12-20; discussion 21.
22. Taylor SJ, Taylor AE, Foy MA, et al. Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine 1999;24:1805-12.
23. Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, et al. Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine 2003;28:607-15.