Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion ; Clinical article

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 154-160

  Parker, Scott L ^a   Godil, Saniya S ^a   Shau, David N ^a   Mendenhall, Stephen K ^a   Mcgirt, Matthew J ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Anatomy; Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; Minimum clinically important difference; Patient reported outcome measure

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANTERIOR CERVICAL DISCECTOMY AND FUSION; ARM PAIN; ARTICLE; CERVICOBRACHIAL NEURALGIA; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; DISABILITY; DISEASE REGISTRY; EUROQOL HEALTH SURVEY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERVERTEBRAL DISKECTOMY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NECK DISABILITY INDEX; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM; SHORT FORM 12; SPINE FUSION; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; DISABILITY EVALUATION; DISKECTOMY; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; RADICULOPATHY; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84873637407     PISSN: 15475654     EISSN: 15475646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3171/2012.10.SPINE12312     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau D, Mendelhall SK, Cheng J, Aaronson O, et al: Long-term outcomes of revision fusion for lumbar pseudarthrosis. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15: 393-398, 2011.
2. Anderson PA, Subach BR, Riew KD: Predictors of outcome after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a multivariate analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:161-166, 2009.
3. Beaton DE: Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation. Med Care 41:593-596, 2003.
4. Carr FA, Healy KM, Villavicencio AT, Nelson EL, Mason A, Burneikiene S, et al: Effect on clinical outcomes of patient pain expectancies and preoperative Mental Component Summary scores from the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15:486-490, 2011.
5. 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 10:469-474, 2010.
6. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY: Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using theOswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8:968-974, 2008.
7. 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 7:541-546, 2007.
8. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP: The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66: 271-273, 1980.
9. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB: The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:2940-2952, 2000.
10. Gallagher EJ, Liebman M, Bijur PE: Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale. Ann Emerg Med 38:633-638, 2001.
11. Grönblad M, Hupli M, Wennerstrand P, Järvinen E, Lukinmaa A, Kouri JP, et al: 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 9:189-195, 1993.
12. Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A: The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12-20, 2003.
13. Hays RD, Woolley JM: The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics 18:419-423, 2000.
14. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH: Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407-415, 1989.
15. Jansson KA, Németh G, Granath F, Jönsson B, Blomqvist P: Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) before and one year after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91: 210-216, 2009.
16. Kulkarni AV: Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 59: 176-184, 2006.
17. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW: Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41:582-592, 2003.
18. Oh MC, Zhang HY, Park JY, Kim KS: Two-level anterior cervical discectomy versus one-level corpectomy in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:692-696, 2009.
19. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Paul AR, Anderson WN, Aaronson O, Cheng JS, et al: Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 14: 598-604, 2011.
20. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau D, Adogwa O, Cheng JS, Anderson WN, et al: Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16:61-67, 2012.
21. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Adogwa O, Anderson WN, Devin CJ, et al: Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16:471-478, 2012.
22. Richardson SS, Berven S: The development of a model for translation of the Neck Disability Index to utility scores for cost-utility analysis in cervical disorders. Spine J 12:55-62, 2012.
23. Roland M, Fairbank J: The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3115-3124, 2000.
24. Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman ML, Williams GR, Lipscomb J, Matchar D: Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics 15:141-155, 1999.
25. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH: Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther 78:1186-1196, 1998.
26. Taylor SJ, Taylor AE, Foy MA, Fogg AJ: Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:1805-1812, 1999.
27. van der Roer N, Ostelo RW, Bekkering GE, van Tulder MW, de Vet HC: Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:578-582, 2006.
28. Ware JE Jr: SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3130-3139, 2000.
29. Wright JG: Interpreting health-related quality of life scores: the simple rule of seven may not be so simple. Med Care 41: 597-598, 2003.
30. Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD: Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 37:469-478, 1999.
31. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD: Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 52:861-873, 1999.