Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck

European Spine Journal

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 101-114

  Fankhauser, C D ^a   Mutter, U ^a   Aghayev, E ^b   Mannion, A F ^a  

^a SCHULTHESS CLINIC   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

COMI; Outcome; Spine surgery; Total disc arthroplasty

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTHROPLASTY; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPINE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CORE OUTCOME MEASUREMENT INDEX FOR NECK PAIN; DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NECK PAIN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; PREOPERATIVE TREATMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF REPORT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTHROPLASTY; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DISPLACEMENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NECK PAIN; PAIN, POSTOPERATIVE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPONDYLOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84862835101     PISSN: 09406719     EISSN: 14320932     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1921-4     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Fejer R, Kyvik K, Hartvigsen J (2006) The prevalence of neck pain in the world population: a systematic critical review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15:834-848
2. Borghouts J, Koes B, Vondeling H, Bouter L (1999) Cost-of-illness ofneck pain in The Netherlands in 1996. Pain 80:629-636
3. Bombardier C (2000) Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommen-dations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3100-3103
4. Strömqvist B (2002) Evidence-based lumbar spine surgery. The role of national registration. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 73:34-39
5. Block A, Ohnmeiss D, Guyer R, Rashbaum R, Hochschuler S (2001) The use ofpresurgical psychological screening to predict the outcome of spine surgery. Spine J 1:274-282
6. Carragee E (2001) Psychological screening in the surgical treat-ment of lumbar disc herniation. Clin J Pain 17:215-219
7. Junge A, Dvorak J, Ahrens S (1995) Predictors of bad and good outcomes of lumbar disc surgery. A prospective clinical study with recommendations for screening to avoid bad outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:460-468
8. Grob D, Porchet F, Kleinstück F, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Luca A, Mutter U, Mannion A (2010) A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects. Eur Spine J 19:297-306
9. Mannion A, Junge A, Elfering A, Dvorak J, Porchet F, Grob D (2009) Great expectations: really the novel predictor of outcome after spinal surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1590-1599
10. Ahn H, Bhandari M, Schemitsch E (2009) An evidence-based approach to the adoption of new technology. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 3):95-98
11. Anderson P, Sasso R, Rouleau J, Carlson C, Goffin J (2004) The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 4:303S-309S
12. Deyo R (1988) Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 69:1044-1053
13. Bowling A (2005) Just one question: if one question works, why ask several? J Epidemiol Community Health 59:342-345
14. Deyo R, Battie M, Beurskens A, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Von Korff M, Waddell G (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:2003-2013
15. Mannion A, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer N, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014-1026
16. Ferrer M, Pellisé F, Escudero O, Alvarez L, Pont A, Alonso J, Deyo R (2006) Validation of a minimum outcome core set in the evaluation of patients with back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1372-1379 discussion 1380
17. Melloh M, Staub L, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Barz T, Theis J, Chavanne A, Grob D, Aebi M, Roeder C (2008) The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results. Eur Spine J 17:1201-1209
18. White P, Lewith G, Prescott P (2004) The core outcomes for neck pain: validation of a new outcome measure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1923-1930
19. Kirshner B, Guyatt G (1985) A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 38:27-36
20. Schluessmann E, Diel P, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Moulin P, Röder C, Group SR (2009) SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J 18:851-861
21. Deyo R, Centor R (1986) Assessing the responsiveness of func-tional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39:897-906
22. Beaton DE, Schemitsch E (2003) Measures of health-related quality of life and physical function. Clin Orthop Relat Res 90-105.
23. Mannion A, Porchet F, Kleinstück F, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as mea-sured with the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):374-379
24. Brooks R (2003) The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective evidence from EuroQol BIOMED research programme. Kluwer, Dordrecht
25. Prieto L, Sacristán JA (2004) What is the value of social values? The uselessness of assessing health-related quality of life through preference measures. BMC Med Res Methodol 4:10
26. AAOS/NASS/SRS/CSRS/ORA/ASIA/COSS outcomes data col-lection questionnaires (1998) Cervical spine\-baseline ques-tionnaire, March 1998, Version 2.0
27. Stoll T, Huber E, Bachmann S, Baumeler H, Mariacher S, Rutz M, Schneider W, Spring H, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G, Steiner W (2004) Validity and sensitivity to change of the NASS ques-tionnaire for patients with cervical spine disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2851-2855
28. Sangha O, Wildner M, Peters A (2000) Evaluation of the North American Spine Society Instrument for assessment of health status in patients with chronic backache. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 138:447-451
29. Daltroy L, Cats-Baril W, Katz J, Fossel A, Liang M (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:741-749
30. Andresen EM (2000) Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81:S15-S20
31. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 4:293-307
32. Terwee C, Bot S, de Boer M, van der Windt D, Knol D, Dekker J, Bouter L, de Vet H (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34-42
33. Streiner DL, Norman GR (1995) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, Oxford
34. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG (2001) A tax-onomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 54:1204-1217
35. Beurskens A, de Vet H, Köke A (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71-76
36. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale
37. Kazis L, Anderson J, Meenan R (1989) Effect sizes for inter-preting changes in health status. Med Care 27:S178-S189
38. Zweig M, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39:561-577
39. Youden W (1950) Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 3:32-35
40. Hyland M (2003) A brief guide to the selection of quality of life instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:24
41. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR (1998) Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2:i-iv, 1-74
42. Bolognese J, Schnitzer T, Ehrich E (2003) Response relationship of VAS and Likert scales in osteoarthritis efficacy measurement. Osteoarthr Cartil 11:499-507
43. Janssen MF, Birnie E, Haagsma JA, Bonsel GJ (2008) Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health 11:275-284
44. Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ (2008) Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods. Qual Life Res 17:463-473
45. Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S (2007) Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care 45:259-263
46. Deyo R, Diehr P, Patrick D (1991) Reproducibility and respon-siveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12:142S-158S
47. Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Weinstein JN (2003) 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 28:607-615
48. Fritzell P, Berg S, Borgström F, Tullberg T, Tropp H (2010) Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J
49. Hyland M (1992) Selection of items and avoidance of bias in quality oflife scales. Pharmacoeconomics 1:182-190
50. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL (1993) Measuring health-related quality oflife. Ann Intern Med 118:622-629
51. Johnson JA, Coons SJ, Ergo A, Szava-Kovats G (1998) Valuation of EuroQOL (EQ-5D) health states in an adult US sample. Pharmacoeconomics 13:421-433
52. Bharmal M, Thomas J (2006) Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value Health 9:262-271
53. Cunillera O, Tresserras R, Rajmil L, Vilagut G, Brugulat P, Herdman M, Mompart A, Medina A, Pardo Y, Alonso J, Brazier J, Ferrer M (2010) Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Qual Life Res 19:853-864
54. Petrou S, Hockley C (2005) An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical prefer-ences in a general population. Health Econ 14:1169-1189
55. Tidermark J, Bergström G (2007) Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) in elderly patients with femoral neck fractures. Qual Life Res 16:321-330
56. Bombardier C, Hayden J, Beaton DE (2001) Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures. J Rheumatol 28:431-438
57. Siepe CJ, Mayer HM (2009) Is the final outcome predictable following total lumbar disc replacement? Proceedings of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine, Miami, Florida, USA, 4-8 May 2009
58. Campbell H, Rivero-Arias O, Johnston K, Gray A, Fairbank J, Frost H, Trial UMSS (2006) Responsiveness of objective, dis-ease-specific, and generic outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain: an assessment for improving, stable, and deteriorating patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:815-822
59. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH (1998) Sen-sitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther 78:1186-1196
60. MacKenzie CR, Charlson ME, DiGioia D, Kelley K (1986) Can the Sickness Impact Profile measure change? An example of scale assessment. J Chronic Dis 39:429-438
61. Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Gill C, Finch E (1994) Assessing change over time in patients with low back pain. Phys Ther 74:528-533