Clinically important deterioration in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery: A choice of evaluation methods using the oswestry disability index, 36-item short form health survey, and pain scales: Clinical article

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 564-568

  Gum, Jeffrey L ^a   Glassman, Steven D ^a,b   Carreon, Leah Y ^b  

^a University of Louisville School of Medicine   (United States)

^b NORTON LEATHERMAN SPINE CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinically important deterioration; Health related quality of life; Lumbar fusion; Minimum clinically important difference; Oswestry disability index; Outcome measures; Sf 36

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BACKACHE; DETERIORATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DISEASE; LEG PAIN; LUMBAR SPINE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; PAIN ASSESSMENT; POSTERIOR SPINE FUSION; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; SCOLIOSIS; SHORT FORM 36; SPINE INSTABILITY; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; VERTEBRAL CANAL STENOSIS;

AGED; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; LUMBOSACRAL REGION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PAIN MEASUREMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPINAL DISEASES; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84887125443     PISSN: 15475654     EISSN: 15475646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3171/2013.8.SPINE12804     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Aprill C, Bogduk N: High-intensity zone: A diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Radiol 65:361-369, 1992.
2. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG, Wells G, Boers M, et al: Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. J Rheumatol 28:400-405, 2001. (Pubitemid 32165160)
3. Campbell H, Rivero-Arias O, Johnston K, Gray A, Fairbank J, Frost H: Responsiveness of objective, disease-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, 2006.
4. 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 the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8:968-974, 2008.
5. Copay AG, Martin MM, Subach BR, Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Schuler TC, et al: Assessment of spine surgery outcomes: inconsistency of change amongst outcome measurements. Spine J 10:291-296, 2010.
6. 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. (Pubitemid 47471437)
7. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB: The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:2940-2952, 2000.
8. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR: Evaluating patient- based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2:i-iv, 1-74, 1998.
9. Glassman S, Gornet MF, Branch C, Polly D Jr, Peloza J, Schwender JD, et al: MOS short form 36 and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in lumbar fusion: A multicenter experience. Spine J 6:21-26, 2006. (Pubitemid 43079170)
10. Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Djurasovic M, Dimar JR, Johnson JR, Puno RM, et al: Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication. Spine J 9:13-21, 2009.
11. Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, Polly DW, Subach BR, Carreon LY: Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:1839- 1847, 2008.
12. Grevitt M, Khazim R, Webb J, Mulholland R, Shepperd J: The short form-36 health survey questionnaire in spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:48-52, 1997.
13. 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. (Pubitemid 36286825)
14. 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.
15. Imagama S, Kawakami N, Tsuji T, Ohara T, Matsubara Y, Kanemura T, et al: Perioperative complications and adverse events after lumbar spinal surgery: Evaluation of 1012 operations at a single center. J Orthop Sci 16:510-515, 2011.
16. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH: Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407-415, 1989.
17. Jensen MP, Chen C, Brugger AM: Postsurgical pain outcome assessment. Pain 99:101-109, 2002. (Pubitemid 35247534)
18. Kulkarni AV: Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 59:176-184, 2006. (Pubitemid 43111622)
19. Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, et al: The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J 18 (Suppl 3): 374-379, 2009.
20. McDowell I, Newell C: Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires, ed. 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
21. Modic MT: Editorial. Modic type 1 and type 2 changes. J Neurosurg Spine 6:150-151, 2007.
22. Modic MT, Steinberg PM, Ross JS, Masaryk TJ, Carter JR: Degenerative disk disease: Assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology 166:193-199, 1988. (Pubitemid 18027070)
23. Modic MT, Ross JS: Lumbar degenerative disk disease. Radiology 245:43-61, 2007. (Pubitemid 47417788)
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. (Pubitemid 29093257)
25. Taylor SJ, Taylor AE, Foy MA, Fogg AJB: Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:1805-1812, 1999. (Pubitemid 29426675)
26. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473-483, 1992.
27. Wells G, Beaton DE, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V, et al: Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 28:406-412, 2001. (Pubitemid 32165161)
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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. (Pubitemid 29385600)