How do idiopathic scoliosis patients who improve after surgery differ from those who do not exceed a minimum detectable change?

European Spine Journal

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 50-56

  Bago, Joan ^a   Perez Grueso, Francisco Javier Sanchez ^b   Pellise, Ferran ^a   Les, Esther ^a  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARI VALL D HEBRON   (Spain)

^b HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO LA PAZ   (Spain)

Author keywords

Health related quality of life; Idiopathic scoliosis; Minimal important difference; Outcome

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANTERIOR SPINE FUSION; ARTICLE; BODY IMAGE; BONE RADIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IDIOPATHIC SCOLIOSIS; INSTRUMENTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; PAIN; POSTERIOR SPINE FUSION; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM; SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; SRS 22; THORACOLUMBAR SPINE; THORAX SURGERY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHILD; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; PREOPERATIVE CARE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SCOLIOSIS; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84862869893     PISSN: 09406719     EISSN: 14320932     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-2017-x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Greenhalgh J (2009) The applications of PROs in clinical prac-tice: what are they, do they work, and why? Qual Life Res 18(1):115-123
2. Asher MA, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B (2003) Discrimination validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine 28(1):74-78
3. Bagó J, Pérez-Grueso FJS, Les E, Hernández P, Pellisé F (2009) Minimal important differences of the SRS-22 Patient Question-naire following surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 18(12):1898-1904
4. van der Roer N, Ostelo RWJG, Bekkering GE, van Tulder MW, de Vet HCW (2006) Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine 31(5):578-582
5. Asher MA, Lai SM, Glattes RC, Burton DC, Alanay A, Bago J (2006) Refinement of the SRS-22 Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire Function domain. Spine 31(5):593-597
6. Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J, Bridwell KH, Clements DH, Lowe TG, Blanke K (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(8):1169-1181
7. Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M, Sucato DJ, Sturm PF, Glass-man SD, the Spinal Deformity Study Group (2010) The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 Appearance, Activity, and Pain Domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35(23):2079-2083
8. Bridwell KH, Berven S, Glassman S, Hamill C, Horton WC, Lenke LG, Schwab F, Baldus C, Shainline M (2007) Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery? Spine 32(20):2220-2225
9. Howard A, Donaldson S, Hedden D, Stephens D, Alman B, Wright J (2007) Improvement in quality of life following surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 32(24):2715-2718
10. Climent JM, Reig A, Sanchez J, Roda C (1995) Construction and validation of a specific quality of life instrument for adolescents with spine deformities. Spine 20(18):2006-2011
11. Climent JM, Bago J, Ey A, Perez-Grueso FJ, Izquierdo E (2005) Validity of the Spanish version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) patient questionnaire. Spine 30(6):705-709
12. Sanders JO, Carreon LY, Sucato DJ, Sturm PF, Diab M, Spinal Deformity Study Group (2010) Preoperative and perioperative factors effect on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgical out-comes. Spine 35:1867-1871
13. Takayama K, Nakamura H, Matsuda H (2009) Quality of life in patients treated surgically for scoliosis: longer than sixteen-year foUow-up. Spine 34(20):2179-2184
14. Bago J, Climent JM, Ey A, Perez-Grueso FJ, Izquierdo E (2004) The Spanish version of the SRS-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis: transcultural adaptation and reliability anal-ysis. Spine 29(15):1676-1680
15. Verma K, Lonner B, Hoashi JS, Lafage V, Dean L, Engel I, Goldstein Y (2010) Demographic factors affect Scoliosis Research Society-22 performance in healthy adolescents: a comparative baseline for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35(24):2134-2139
16. Schünemann HJ, Akl EA, Guyatt GH (2006) Interpreting the results ofpatient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: the clinician's perspective. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:62
17. Brozek JL, Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ (2006) 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 4:69
18. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW, Schuler TC (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important differ-ence: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7(5):541-546
19. Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE, Beaton DE, Griffiths AM, Critch JN, Guyatt GH (2010) The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 63(1):28-36
20. Revicki D, Hays RD, CeUa D, Sloan J (2008) Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61(2):102-109
21. Carragee EJ (2010) The rise and fall of the "minimum clinically important difference". Spine J 10(4):283-284
22. Gatchel RJ, Lurie JD, Mayer TG (2010) Minimal clinically important difference. Spine 35(19):1739-1743
23. Guyatt G, Schunemann H (2007) How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients? Qual Life Res 16(7):1097-1105
24. Lonstein JE, Carlson JM (1984) The prediction of curve pro-gression in untreated idiopathic scoliosis during growth. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66(7):1061-1071
25. Bago J, Perez-Grueso F, Les E, Hernandez P, Pellise F, Fernan-dez-BaiHo N, ViUanueva C, Garcia A (2009) Clinical outcome of surgery for idiopathic scoliosis. Evaluation by satisfaction with treatment and overall perceived effect. Eur Spine J 18:139-140