Determination of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in pain, disability, and quality of life after revision fusion for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis

Spine Journal

Volumn 12, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1122-1128

  Parker, Scott L ^a,b   Adogwa, Owoicho ^a,b   Mendenhall, Stephen K ^a,b   Shau, David N ^a,b   Anderson, William N ^c   Cheng, Joseph S ^a,b   Devin, Clinton J ^a,b   McGirt, Matthew J ^a,b  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Independent Statistician   (United States)

Author keywords

MCID; Minimum clinically important difference; Pseudoarthrosis; Revision fusion

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTHRODESIS; ARTICLE; BACKACHE; CALCULATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DISABILITY; EUROPEAN QUALITY OF LIFE 5 DIMENSIONS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MINIMUM CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSEUDARTHROSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; SHORT FORM 12 PHYSICAL COMPONENT SCORE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADULT; AGED; BACK PAIN; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSEUDARTHROSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84872360644     PISSN: 15299430     EISSN: 18781632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.006     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. E.J. Gallagher, M. Liebman, and P.E. Bijur Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale Ann Emerg Med 38 2001 633 638 (Pubitemid 33131561)
2. M. Gronblad, M. Hupli, and P. Wennerstrand Intercorrelation and test-retest reliability of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and their correlation with pain intensity in low back pain patients Clin J Pain 9 1993 189 195 (Pubitemid 23275175)
3. J.C. Fairbank, J. Couper, J.B. Davies, and J.P. O'Brien The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire Physiotherapy 66 1980 271 273 (Pubitemid 11234479)
4. J.C. Fairbank, and P.B. Pynsent The Oswestry Disability Index Spine 25 2000 2940 2952 discussion 2952
5. M. Roland, and J. Fairbank The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire Spine 25 2000 3115 3124 (Pubitemid 32042943)
6. J.E. Ware Jr. SF-36 health survey update Spine 25 2000 3130 3139
7. X. Badia, A. Diaz-Prieto, and M.T. Gorriz Using the EuroQol-5D to measure changes in quality of life 12 months after discharge from an intensive care unit Intensive Care Med 27 2001 1901 1907 (Pubitemid 33145076)
8. K.A. Jansson, G. Nemeth, and F. Granath Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) before and one year after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis J Bone Joint Surg Br 91 2009 210 216
9. A.V. Kulkarni Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire J Clin Epidemiol 59 2006 176 184 (Pubitemid 43111622)
10. P.W. Stratford, J.M. Binkley, D.L. Riddle, and G.H. Guyatt Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1 Phys Ther 78 1998 1186 1196 (Pubitemid 28507242)
11. N. van der Roer, R.W. Ostelo, and G.E. Bekkering Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain Spine 31 2006 578 582
12. L.Y. Carreon, S.D. Glassman, M.J. Campbell, and P.A. Anderson 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 10 2010 469 474
13. O. Hagg, P. Fritzell, and A. Nordwall The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain Eur Spine J 12 2003 12 20 (Pubitemid 36286825)
14. K.W. Wyrwich, N.A. Nienaber, W.M. Tierney, and F.D. Wolinsky Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life Med Care 37 1999 469 478
15. K.W. Wyrwich, W.M. Tierney, and F.D. Wolinsky Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life J Clin Epidemiol 52 1999 861 873 (Pubitemid 29385600)
16. A.G. Copay, S.D. Glassman, and B.R. Subach 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 8 2008 968 974
17. S.L. Parker, O. Adogwa, and A.R. Paul Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolithesis J Neurosurg Spine 14 2011 598 604
18. J.K. Burkus, J.D. Dorchak, and D.L. Sanders Radiographic assessment of interbody fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein type 2 Spine 28 2003 372 377 (Pubitemid 36232619)
19. P.C. McAfee, S.D. Boden, and J.W. Brantigan Symposium: a critical discrepancy-a criteria of successful arthrodesis following interbody spinal fusions Spine 26 2001 320 334 (Pubitemid 32144133)
20. A.M. Kelly The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain Emerg Med J 18 2001 205 207
21. J. Ware Jr., M. Kosinski, and S.D. Keller A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity Med Care 34 1996 220 233 (Pubitemid 126433231)
22. A.N. Tosteson, J.D. Lurie, and T.D. Tosteson Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years Ann Intern Med 149 2008 845 853
23. A.G. Copay, B.R. Subach, and S.D. Glassman Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods Spine J 7 2007 541 546 (Pubitemid 47471437)
24. E.J. Carragee, and I. Cheng Minimum acceptable outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion Spine J 10 2010 313 320
25. R.J. Gatchel, and T.G. Mayer Testing minimal clinically important difference: consensus or conundrum? Spine J 10 2010 321 327
26. R. Jaeschke, J. Singer, and G.H. Guyatt Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference Control Clin Trials 10 1989 407 415 (Pubitemid 20025670)
27. D.E. Beaton Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation Med Care 41 2003 593 596
28. G.R. Norman, J.A. Sloan, and K.W. Wyrwich Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation Med Care 41 2003 582 592
29. J.G. Wright Interpreting health-related quality of life scores: the simple rule of seven may not be so simple Med Care 41 2003 597 598
30. R.D. Hays, and J.M. Woolley The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics 18 2000 419 423
31. G. Samsa, D. Edelman, and M.L. Rothman Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II Pharmacoeconomics 15 1999 141 155 (Pubitemid 29093257)
32. S.J. Taylor, A.E. Taylor, M.A. Foy, and A.J. Fogg Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain Spine 24 1999 1805 1812 (Pubitemid 29426675)