Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of lumbar surgery in registry efforts: Determining the most valid and responsive instruments

Spine Journal

Volumn 14, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 2885-2891

  Godil, Saniya S ^a,b   Parker, Scott L ^a,b   Zuckerman, Scott L ^a,b   Mendenhall, Stephen K ^a,b   Glassman, Steven D ^c   McGirt, Matthew J ^d  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Spinal Column Surgical Outcomes and Quality Research Laboratory   (United States)

^c NORTON LEATHERMAN SPINE CENTER   (United States)

^d CAROLINA NEUROSURGERY AND SPINE ASSOCIATES   (United States)

Author keywords

Disability; Effectiveness of spine surgery; Lumbar spine surgery; Patient reported outcome instruments; Responsiveness; Validity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BACKACHE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COHORT ANALYSIS; DEPRESSION; DISABILITY; EUROQOL FIVE DIMENSION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; LEG PAIN; LUMBAR SPINE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RATING SCALE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REGISTER; SELF REPORT; SHORT FORM 12; SPINE FUSION; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION; VALIDITY; ZUNG SELF RATING DEPRESSION SCALE; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AGED; COMPARATIVE STUDY; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGISTRIES; SPINAL FUSION; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84919331240     PISSN: 15299430     EISSN: 18781632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.04.023     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. S. Dagenais, J. Caro, and S. Haldeman A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally Spine J 8 2008 8 20
2. B.I. Martin, R.A. Deyo, and S.K. Mirza Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems JAMA 299 2008 656 664
3. R.A. Deyo, D.T. Gray, and W. Kreuter United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions Spine 30 2005 1441 1445 discussion 1446-7
4. B.C. Drolet, and K.B. Johnson Categorizing the world of registries J Biomed Inform 41 2008 1009 1020
5. D.G. Arts, N.F. De Keizer, and G.J. Scheffer Defining and improving data quality in medical registries: a literature review, case study, and generic framework J Am Med Inform Assoc 9 2002 600 611
6. I.M. Mullins, M.S. Siadaty, and J. Lyman Data mining and clinical data repositories: insights from a 667,000 patient data set Comput Biol Med 36 2006 1351 1377
7. C. Roder, U. Muller, and M. Aebi The rationale for a spine registry Eur Spine J 15 1 Suppl 2006 S52 S56
8. S. Utku, H. Baysal, and M. Zileli Spine surgery database: a Turkish registry for spinal disorders Turk Neurosurg 20 2010 223 230
9. P. Diel, W. Reuss, and E. Aghayev SWISSspine-a nationwide health technology assessment registry for balloon kyphoplasty: methodology and first results Spine J 10 2010 961 971
10. E. Schluessmann, P. Diel, and E. Aghayev SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses Eur Spine J 18 2009 851 861
11. E. Aghayev, C. Roder, and T. Zweig Benchmarking in the SWISSspine registry: results of 52 Dynardi lumbar total disc replacements compared with the data pool of 431 other lumbar disc prostheses Eur Spine J 19 2010 2190 2199
12. B. Stromqvist, P. Fritzell, O. Hagg, and B. Jonsson The Swedish Spine register: development, design and utility Eur Spine J 18 3 Suppl 2009 294 304
13. M. Aebi, and D. Grob SSE Spine Tango: a European spine registry promoted by the Spine Society of Europe (SSE) Eur Spine J 13 2004 661 662
14. M. Melloh, L. Staub, and E. Aghayev The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results Eur Spine J 17 2008 1201 1209
15. 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
16. 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
17. J.C. Fairbank, and P.B. Pynsent The Oswestry Disability Index Spine 25 2000 2940 2952 discussion 2952
18. The EuroQol Group EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life Health Policy 16 1990 199 208
19. 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
20. A.B. Shafer Meta-analysis of the factor structures of four depression questionnaires: Beck, CES-D, Hamilton, and Zung J Clin Psychol 62 2006 123 146
21. M.J. Naughton, and I. Wiklund A critical review of dimension-specific measures of health-related quality of life in cross-cultural research Qual Life Res 2 1993 397 432
22. R.A. Deyo, and R.M. Centor Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance J Chronic Dis 39 1986 897 906
23. M.H. Zweig, and G. Campbell Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine Clin Chem 39 1993 561 577
24. J.A. Hanley, and B.J. McNeil The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve Radiology 143 1982 29 36
25. A.J. Beurskens, H.C. de Vet, and A.J. Koke Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments Pain 65 1996 71 76
26. J.M. Quintana, U. Aguirre, and I. Barrio Outcomes after total hip replacement based on patients' basal status, what results you can expect Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 64 2012 563 572
27. C. Gerlinger, and T. Schmelter Determining the non-inferiority margin for patient reported outcomes Pharm Stat 10 2011 410 413
28. L.A. Michener, A.R. Snyder, and B.G. Leggin Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with shoulder pain and the effect of surgical status J Sport Rehabil 20 2011 115 128
29. L.Y. Carreon, J.O. Sanders, and M. Diab The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 appearance, activity, and pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis Spine 35 2010 2079 2083
30. E.F. Maughan, and J.S. Lewis Outcome measures in chronic low back pain Eur Spine J 19 2010 1484 1494
31. B Kirshner, and G Guyatt A methodological framework for assessing health indices J Chronic Dis 38 1985 27 36
32. G.R. Norman, K.W. Wyrwich, and D.L. Patrick The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients Qual Life Res 16 2007 815 822
33. F. Angst, M.L. Verra, and S. Lehmann Responsiveness of the cervical Northern American Spine Society questionnaire (NASS) and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) in chronic whiplash Clin Rehabil 26 2012 142 151
34. P. Olerud, J. Tidermark, and S. Ponzer Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in patients with proximal humeral fractures J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20 2011 1200 1206
35. L. Uwer, C. Rotonda, and F. Guillemin Responsiveness of EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR38 and FACT-C quality of life questionnaires in patients with colorectal cancer Health Qual Life Outcomes 9 2011 70
36. G. Zanoli Outcome assessment in lumbar spine surgery Acta Orthop Suppl 76 2005 5 47
37. J. DeVine, D.C. Norvell, and E. Ecker Evaluating the correlation and responsiveness of patient-reported pain with function and quality-of-life outcomes after spine surgery Spine 36 21 Suppl 2011 S69 S74
38. J.R. Chapman, D.C. Norvell, and J.T. Hermsmeyer Evaluating common outcomes for measuring treatment success for chronic low back pain Spine 36 21 Suppl 2011 S54 S68
39. J.M. Fritz, and S.R. Piva Physical impairment index: reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with acute low back pain Spine 28 2003 1189 1194
40. H. Frost, S.E. Lamb, and S. Stewart-Brown Responsiveness of a patient specific outcome measure compared with the Oswestry Disability Index v2.1 and Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire for patients with subacute and chronic low back pain Spine 33 2008 2450 2457 discussion 2458
41. M. Grotle, J.I. Brox, and N.K. Vollestad Concurrent comparison of responsiveness in pain and functional status measurements used for patients with low back pain Spine 29 2004 E492 E501
42. H.H. Lauridsen, J. Hartvigsen, and C. Manniche Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7 2006 82
43. 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 spondylolisthesis J Neurosurg Spine 14 2011 598 604
44. S.L. Parker, S.K. Mendenhall, and D. Shau Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease J Neurosurg Spine 16 2012 61 67
45. S.L. Parker, S.K. Mendenhall, and D.N. Shau 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 J Neurosurg Spine 16 2012 471 478
46. R. Leclaire, F. Blier, L. Fortin, and R. Proulx A cross-sectional study comparing the Oswestry and Roland-Morris Functional Disability scales in two populations of patients with low back pain of different levels of severity Spine 22 1997 68 71
47. M. Roland, and J. Fairbank The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire Spine 25 2000 3115 3124
48. P.W. Stratford, J. Binkley, and P. Solomon Assessing change over time in patients with low back pain Phys Ther 74 1994 528 533
49. A.N. Tosteson, T.D. Tosteson, and J.D. Lurie Comparative effectiveness evidence from the spine patient outcomes research trial: surgical versus nonoperative care for spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and intervertebral disc herniation Spine 36 2011 2061 2068
50. S.L. Parker, E.C. Fulchiero, and B.J. Davis Cost-effectiveness of multilevel hemilaminectomy for lumbar stenosis-associated radiculopathy Spine J 11 2011 705 711
51. O. Adogwa, S.L. Parker, and B.J. Davis Cost-effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis J Neurosurg Spine 15 2011 138 143
52. P. Fritzell, S. Berg, and F. Borgstrom 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 20 2011 1001 1011
53. 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