Minimum clinically important differences in the cervical spine outcomes questionnaire: Results from a national multicenter study of patients treated with anterior cervical decompression and arthrodesis

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

Volumn 93, Issue 14, 2011, Pages 1294-1300

  Skolasky, Richard L ^a   Albert, Todd J ^a   Maggard, Anica M ^a   Riley III, Lee H ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTHRODESIS; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPINE OUTCOMES QUESTIONNAIRE; FOLLOW UP; FUNCTIONAL DISEASE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENT VALIDATION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; MINIMUM CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; NECK PAIN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF REPORT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SHORT FORM 36; SHOULDER PAIN; SPINAL CORD DECOMPRESSION; SUBSTANTIAL CLINICAL BENEFIT;

EID: 80052864728     PISSN: 00219355     EISSN: 15351386     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.01136     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7:541-6. (Pubitemid 47471437)
2. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994; 47:81-7. (Pubitemid 24034293)
3. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Campbell MJ, Anderson PA. Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J. 2010;10:469-74.
4. Spratt KF. Patient-level minimal clinically important difference based on clinical judgment and minimally detectable measurement difference: a rationale for the SF-36 physical function scale in the SPORT intervertebral disc herniation cohort. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:1722-31.
5. Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Whitman JM, Palmer JA. The reliability and construct validity of the Neck Disability Index and patient specific functional scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31:598-602.
6. Young BA, Walker MJ, Strunce JB, Boyles RE, Whitman JM, Childs JD. Responsiveness of the Neck Disability Index in patients with mechanical neck disorders. Spine J. 2009;9:802-8.
7. Skolasky RL, Riley LH 3rd, Albert TJ. Psychometric properties of the Cervical Spine Outcomes Questionnaire and its relationship to standard assessment tools used in spine research. Spine J. 2007;7:174-9.
8. BenDebba M, Heller J, Ducker TB, Eisinger JM. Cervical spine outcomes questionnaire: its development and psychometric properties. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:2116-24.
9. Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14:409-15.
10. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31:247-63.
11. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Lu JF, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994;32:40-66.
12. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem. 1993;39:561-77. (Pubitemid 23118304)
13. Brozek JL, Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ. How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:69.