Could less be more when assessing patient-rated outcome in spinal stenosis?

Spine

Volumn 40, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 710-718

  Mannion, Anne F ^a   Fekete, Tamas F ^a   Wertli, Maria M ^b   Mattle, Michele ^b   Nauer, Selina ^a   Kleinstück, Frank S ^a   Jeszenszky, Dezsö ^a   Haschtmann, Daniel ^a   Becker, Hans Jürgen ^a   Porchet, François ^a  

^a SCHULTHESS CLINIC   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI); Outcome; Receiver operating characteristics; Registries; Responsiveness; Spinal stenosis; Swiss Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM); Validity; Zurich Claudication Questionnaire

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BACK TROUBLE FEELING THERMOMETER PAIN NUMERIC RATING SCALE; CORE OUTCOME MEASURES INDEX; EUROQOL VISUAL ANALOGUE SCALE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE ASSESSMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; ROLAND MORRIS DISABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE; SWISS SPINAL STENOSIS MEASURE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPLICATION; CONVALESCENCE; DISABILITY; INTERMITTENT CLAUDICATION; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; LUMBAR VERTEBRA; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SPINAL STENOSIS; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERY ELDERLY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AREA UNDER CURVE; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERMITTENT CLAUDICATION; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; ROC CURVE; SPINAL STENOSIS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84938561903     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000751     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine 1998;23:2003-13.
2. Bombardier C. Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine 2000;25:3100-3.
3. Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, et al. Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 2005;14:1014-26.
4. Ferrer M, Pellise F, Escudero O, et al. Validation of a minimum outcome core set in the evaluation of patients with back pain. Spine 2006;31:1372-9; discussion 80.
5. Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück F, et al. The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: Part 1. The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 2009;18:367-73.
6. Mannion AF, Boneschi M, Teli M, et al. Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J 2012;21:S737-49.
7. Genevay S, Cedraschi C, Marty M, et al. Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted French version of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) in patients with low back pain. Eur Spine J 2011;21:130-7.
8. Damasceno LH, Rocha PA, Barbosa ES, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and assessment of the reliability and validity of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the Brazilian-Portuguese language. Eur Spine J 2011;21:1273-82.
9. Miekisiak G, Kollataj M, Dobrogowski J, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain. Eur Spine J 2012;22:995-1001.
10. Storheim K, Brox JI, Lochting I, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Norwegian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain. Eur Spine J 2012;21:2539-49.
11. Qiao J, Zhu F, Zhu Z, et al. Validation of the Simplified Chinese version of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI). Eur Spine J 2013;22:2821-6.
12. Roder C, Chavanne A, Mannion AF, et al. SSE Spine Tango-content, workflow, set-up. www.eurospine.org-Spine Tango. A European spine registry. Eur Spine J 2005;14:920-4.
13. Melloh M, Staub L, Aghayev E, et al. The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results. Eur Spine J 2008;17:1201-9.
14. Zweig T, Mannion AF, Grob D, et al. How to Tango: a manual for implementing Spine Tango. Eur Spine J 2009;18 (suppl 3):312-20.
15. Mannion AF, Kleinstueck FS, Mutter U, et al. The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the routine documentation of outcome in patients undergoing spine surgery: still performing well five years on?. Eurospine, Spine Society of Europe. Milan, Italy: Eur Spine J 2011:S441.
16. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Controlled Clin Trials 1991;12(suppl):142-58.
17. Kirschner Guyatt A. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 1985;38:27-36.
18. Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, et al. Relative Responsiveness of Condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:1369-78.
19. Steurer J, Nydegger A, Held U, et al. LumbSten: the lumbar spinal stenosis outcome study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010;11:254.
20. Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS, 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 2009;18:374-9.
21. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:34-42.
22. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 3rd ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press Inc.; 1995.
23. Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81:S15-20.
24. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, et al. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:459-68.
25. Hyland ME. A brief guide to the selection of quality of life instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:24.
26. Bowling A. Just one question: if one question works, why ask several? J Epidemiol Community Health 2005;59:342-5.
27. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, et al. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ 2002;324:1183.
28. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995;4:293-307.
29. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, et al. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:i-iv, 1-74.
30. Abbott JH, Schmitt JS. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale was valid for group-level change comparisons and between-group discrimination. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:681-8.
31. Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, et al. Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine 2003;28:607-15.
32. Cronbach LJ. Essentials of Psychological Testing. 5th ed. New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1990.
33. Balague F, Mannion AF, Pellise F, et al. Clinical update: low back pain. Lancet 2007;369:726-8.
34. Weiner BK, Walsh TL, Hanscom B, et al. Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine 2003;28:607-15.
35. Spine 2003;28:2304-5.
36. Beurskens AJHM, de Vet HCW, Köke AJA. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 1996;65:71-6.
37. Campbell H, Rivero-Arias O, Johnston K, et al. 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 2006;31:815-22.
38. Havakeshian S, Mannion AF. Negative beliefs and psychological disturbance in spine surgery patients: a cause or consequence of a poor treatment outcome? Eur Spine J 2013;22:2827-35.
39. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part 1: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 1983;8:141-4.
40. Exner V, Keel P. Erfassung der Behinderung bei Patienten mit chronischen Rückenschmerzen. Schmerz 2000;14:392-400.
41. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53-72.
42. Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain 1986;27:117-26.