The minimum clinically important difference in scoliosis research society-22 appearance, activity, and pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Spine

Volumn 35, Issue 23, 2010, Pages 2079-2083

  Carreon, Leah Y ^a   Sanders, James O ^b   Diab, Mohammad ^c   Sucato, Daniel J ^d   Sturm, Peter F ^e   Glassman, Steven D ^a  

^a NORTON LEATHERMAN SPINE CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d TEXAS SCOTTISH RITE HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN   (United States)

^e SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN   (United States)

Author keywords

adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; minimum clinically important difference; quality of life; spine fusion; SRS 22

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BACKACHE; CHILD; COHORT ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; IDIOPATHIC SCOLIOSIS; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT ERROR; PERCEPTION; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCHOOL CHILD; SCOLIOSIS APPEARANCE QUESTIONNAIRE; SCOLIOSIS RESEARCH SOCIETY 22; SELF CONCEPT; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STUDENT T TEST;

ADOLESCENT; AREA UNDER CURVE; CHILD; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PAIN; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; ROC CURVE; SCOLIOSIS; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 78149281848     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c61fd7     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Climent JM, Reig A, Sá nchez J, et al. Construction and validation of a specific quality of life instrument for adolescents with spine deformities. Spine 1995;20:2006-11.
2. Feise RJ, Donaldson S, Crowther ER, et al. Construction and validation of the scoliosis quality of life index in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2005;30:1310-5.
3. Parent EC, Hill D, Moreau M, et al. Score distribution of the Scoliosis Quality of Life Index questionnaire in different subgroups of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2007;32:1767-77.
4. Asher M, Lai SM, Burton D, et al. Spine deformity correlates better than trunk deformity with idiopathic scoliosis patients' quality of life questionnaire responses. Stud Health Technol Inform 2002;91:462-4.
5. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. Discrimination validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scolio-sis curve pattern and curve size. Spine 2003;28:74-8.
6. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine 2003;28:70-3.
7. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, et al. The reliability and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic sco-liosis. Spine 2003;28:63-9.
8. Alanay A, Cil A, Berk H, et al. Reliability and validity of adapted Turkish Version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine 2005;30:2464-8.
9. Bago J, Climent JM, Ey A, et al. The Spanish version of the SRS-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis: transcultural adaptation and reliability analysis. Spine 2004;29:1676-80.
10. Beauséjour M, Joncas J, Goulet L, et al. Reliability and validity of adapted French Canadian version of Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Questionnaire (SRS-22) in Quebec. Spine 2009;34:623-8.
11. Berven S, Deviren V, Demir-Deviren S, et al. Studies in the modified Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Instrument in adults: validation, reliability, and discriminatory capacity. Spine 2003;28:2164-9.
12. Bomback DA, Charles G, Widmann R, et al. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery compared with thoracotomy: early and late follow-up of radio-graphical and functional outcome. Spine J 2007;7:399-405.
13. Bridwell KH, Berven S, Glassman S, et al. Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery? Spine 2007;32:2220-5.
14. Bridwell KH, Cats-Baril W, Harrast J, et al. The validity of the SRS-22 instrument in an adult spinal deformity population compared with the Os-westry and SF-12: a study of response distribution, concurrent validity, internal consistency, and reliability. Spine 2005;30:455-61.
15. Bunge EM, Juttmann RE, de Kleuver M, et al., NESCIO group. Health-related quality of life in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after treatment: short-term effects after brace or surgical treatment. Eur Spine J 2007;16:83-9.
16. Climent JM, Bago J, Ey A, et al. Validity of the Spanish version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) Patient Questionnaire. Spine 2005; 30:705-9.
17. Danielsson AJ. What impact does spinal deformity correction for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis make on quality of life? Spine 2007;32(19 suppl): S101-8.
18. Deviren V, Patel VV, Metz LN, et al. Anterior arthrodesis with instrumentation for thoracolumbar scoliosis: comparison of efficacy in adults and adolescents. Spine 2008;33:1219-23.
19. Glowacki M, Misterska E, Laurentowska M, et al. Polish adaptation of Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. Spine 2009;34:1060-5.
20. Hashimoto H, Sase T, Arai Y, et al. Validation of a Japanese version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire among idiopathic sco-liosis patients in Japan. Spine 2007;32:E141-6.
21. Li M, Wang CF, Gu SX, et al. Adapted simplified Chinese (mainland) version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. Spine 2009;34:1321-4.
22. Lonner BS, Auerbach JD, Estreicher M, et al. Video-assisted anterior thora-coscopic spinal fusion versus posterior spinal fusion: a comparative study utilizing the SRS-22 outcome instrument. Spine 2009;34:193-8.
23. Luhmann SJ, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, et al. Thoracic adolescent idiopathic sco-liosis curves between 70 degrees and 100 degrees: is anterior release necessary? Spine 2005;30:2061-7.
24. Merola AA, Haher TR, Brkaric M, etal. A multicenter study of the outcomes of the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcome instrument. Spine 2002;27:2046-51.
25. Monticone M, Carabalona R, Negrini S. Reliability of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire (Italian version) in mild adolescent vertebral deformities. Eura Medicophys 2004;40:191-7.
26. Newton PO, Parent S, Marks M, et al. Prospective evaluation of 50 consecutive scoliosis patients surgically treated with thoracoscopic anterior instrumentation. Spine 2005;30(suppl):100-9.
27. Niemeyer T, Schubert C, Halm HF, et al. Validity and reliability of an adapted German version of scoliosis research society-22 questionnaire. Spine 2009;34:818-21.
28. Rathjen K, Wood M, McClung A, et al. Clinical and radiographic results after implant removal in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2007;32:2184-8.
29. Rinella A, Lenke L, Peelle M, et al. Comparison of SRS questionnaire results submitted by both parents and patients in the operative treatment of idio-pathic scoliosis. Spine 2004;29:303-10.
30. Sweet FA, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Prospective radiographic and clinical outcomes and complications of single solid rod instrumented anterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2001;26:1956-65.
31. Zhao L, Zhang Y, Sun X, et al. The Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire adapted for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients in China: reliability and validity analysis. J Child Orthop 2007;1:351-5.
32. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding the minimum clinical important difference (MCID). A review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007;7:541-6.
33. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, et al. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study Questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 2008;8:968-74.
34. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:395-407.
35. 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.
36. Asher MA, Min LaiS,Burton DC. Further development and validationofthe Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcomes instrument. Spine 2000;25: 2381-6.
37. Glattes RC, Burton DC, Lai SM, et al. The reliability and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r patient questionnaire compared with the Child Health Questionnaire-CF87 patient questionnaire for adolescent spinal deformity. Spine 2007;32:1778-84.
38. Lai SM, Asher M, Burton D. Estimating SRS-22 quality of life measures with SF-36: application in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2006;31:473-8.
39. SRS-30 Patient Questionnaire [Scoliosis Research Society Web site]. Available at: http://srs.org/professionals/outcomes/srs-30.pdf
40. SRS-30 Patient Questionnaire/Score Sheet [Scoliosis Research Society Web site]. Available at: http://srs.org/professionals/outcomes/srs-30-score-sheet. pdf.
41. Sanders JO, Harrast JJ, Kuklo TR, et al. Spinal Deformity Study Group. The Spinal Appearance Questionnaire: results of reliability, validity, and responsiveness testing in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2007; 32:2719-22.
42. Pineda S, Bago J, Gilperez C, et al. Validity of the Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale to measure subjective perception of spine deformity in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis 2006;1:18.
43. Sanders JO, Polly DW Jr, Cats-Baril W, et al. AIS Section of the Spinal Deformity Study Group. Analysis of patient and parent assessment of deformity in idiopathic scoliosis using the Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale. Spine 2003;28:2158-63.
44. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley, Inc.; 2000.
45. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-36.
46. JaeschkeR, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurementof health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10: 407-15.
47. Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, et al. Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 1999;37:469-78.
48. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky F. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:861-73.
49. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, et al. Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. J Rheumatol 2001;28:400-5.
50. Wells G, Beaton DE, Shea B, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 2001;28:406-12.
51. Bridwell KH, Shufflebarger HL, Lenke LG, et al. Parents' and patients' preferences and concerns in idiopathic adolescent scoliosis: a cross-sectional preoperative analysis. Spine 2000;25:2392-9.