Quality of Life and General Health after Elective Surgery for Cervical Spine Pathologies: Determining a Valid and Responsive Metric of Health State Utility

Neurosurgery

Volumn 77, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 553-560

  Chotai, Silky ^a   Parker, Scott L ^a   Sivaganesan, Ahilan ^a   Godil, Saniya S ^a   McGirt, Matthew J ^b   Devin, Clinton J ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b Carolina Neurosurgery and Spine   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical spine; Degenerative; EQ5D; Quality of life; SF6D; Surgery

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARM PAIN; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPINE DISEASE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECOMPRESSION SURGERY; ELECTIVE SURGERY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HOSPITAL READMISSION; HUMAN; LAMINECTOMY; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NECK DISABILITY INDEX; NECK PAIN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENT; SHORT FORM 12; SPINE DISEASE; SPINE FUSION; SPINE SURGERY; VALIDITY; CERVICAL VERTEBRA; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH STATUS; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REGISTER; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; SURGERY; TRENDS; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGED; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; ELECTIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; REGISTRIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84941930721     PISSN: 0148396X     EISSN: 15244040     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000886     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Angevine PD, Arons RR, McCormick PC. National and regional rates and variation of cervical discectomy with and without anterior fusion, 1990-1999. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(9):931-939; discussion 940.
2. Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Mirza S, Martin BI. United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine. 2005;30(12):1441-1445; discussion 1446-1447.
3. Marquez-Lara A, Nandyala SV, Fineberg SJ, Singh K. Current trends in demographics, practice, and in-hospital outcomes in cervical spine surgery: a national database analysis between 2002 and 2011. Spine. 2014;39(6):476-481.
4. Oglesby M, Fineberg SJ, Patel AA, Pelton MA, Singh K. Epidemiological trends in cervical spine surgery for degenerative diseases between 2002 and 2009. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(14):1226-1232.
5. Patil PG, Turner DA, Pietrobon R. National trends in surgical procedures for degenerative cervical spine disease: 1990-2000. Neurosurgery. 2005;57(4): 753-758; discussion 753-758.
6. Wang MC, Kreuter W, Wolfla CE, Maiman DJ, Deyo RA. Trends and variations in cervical spine surgery in the United States: Medicare beneficiaries, 1992 to 2005. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(9):955-961; discussion 962-963.
7. Asher AL, Speroff T, Dittus RS, et al. The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD): a Collaborative North American outcomes registry to advance value-based spine care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22 suppl 1):S106-S116.
8. McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Asher AL, Norvell D, Sherry N, Devin CJ. Role of prospective registries in defining the value and effectiveness of spine care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22 suppl 1):S117-S128.
9. Melloh M, Staub L, Aghayev E, et al. The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(9):1201-1209.
10. Schluessmann E, Diel P, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Moulin P, Röder C. SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(6):851-861.
11. Aebi M, Grob D. SSE Spine Tango: a European Spine Registry promoted by the Spine Society of Europe (SSE). Eur Spine J. 2004;13(8):661-662.
12. Diel P, Reuss W, Aghayev E, Moulin P, Röder C. SWISSspine-a nationwide health technology assessment registry for balloon kyphoplasty: methodology and first results. Spine J. 2010;10(11):961-971.
13. Stromqvist B, Fritzell P, Hägg O, Jönsson B. The Swedish Spine Register: development, design and utility. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(suppl 3):294-304.
14. Utku S, Baysal H, Zileli M. Spine surgery database: a Turkish registry for spinal disorders. Turk Neurosurg. 2010;20(2):223-230.
15. Larkin DJ, Swanson RC, Fuller S, Cortese DA. The Affordable Care Act: a case study for understanding and applying complexity concepts to health care reform. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014.
16. Kaplan RM, Ganiats TG, Sieber WJ, Anderson JP. The Quality of Well-Being Scale: critical similarities and differences with SF-36. Int J Qual Health Care. 1998; 10(6):509-520.
17. Lubelski D, Alvin MD, Silverstein M, et al. Quality of life outcomes following surgery for patients with coexistent cervical stenosis and multiple sclerosis. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(8):1699-1704.
18. Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making. 1989;9(2):142-149.
19. Gundle KR, Cizik AM, Punt SE, Conrad EU III, Davidson DJ. Validation of the SF-6D Health State Utilities Measure in Lower Extremity Sarcoma. Sarcoma. 2014;2014:450902.
20. McCrone P, Patel A, Knapp M, et al. A comparison of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores in a study of patients with schizophrenia. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2009; 12(1):27-31.
21. McDonough CM, Grove MR, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Hilibrand AS, Tosteson AN. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(5):1321-1332.
22. Whitehurst DG, Norman R, Brazier JE, Viney R. Comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D responses using scoring algorithms derived from similar valuation exercises. Value Health. 2014;17(5):570-577.
23. Wu J, Han Y, Zhao FL, Zhou J, Chen Z, Sun H. Validation and comparison of EuroQoL-5 dimension (EQ-5D) and Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) among stable angina patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):156.
24. Carreon LY, Bratcher KR, Das N, Nienhuis JB, Glassman SD. Estimating EQ-5D values from the Neck Disability Index and numeric rating scales for neck and arm pain. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(3):394-399.
25. Hanmer J. Predicting an SF-6D preference-based score using MCS and PCS scores from the SF-12 or SF-36. Value Health. 2009;12(6):958-966.
26. Godil SS, Parker SL, Zuckerman SL, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ. Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of cervical spine surgery in registry efforts: determining the most valid and responsive instruments. Spine J. 2015;15(6): 1203-1209.
27. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39(11): 897-906.
28. Hanley JA,McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143(1):29-36.
29. Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Köke AJ. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain. 1996;65(1):71-76.
30. Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M, Sucato DJ, Sturm PF, Glassman SD. The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 Appearance, Activity, and Pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(23):2079-2083.
31. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem. 1993;39(4): 561-577.
32. Angst F, Verra ML, Lehmann S, Gysi F, Benz T, Aeschlimann A. Responsiveness of the cervical Northern American Spine Society questionnaire (NASS) and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) in chronic whiplash. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(2):142-151.
33. Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27-36.
34. Young IA, Cleland JA, Michener LA, Brown C. Reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the neck disability index, patient-specific functional scale, and numeric pain rating scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89(10):831-839.
35. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11): 1095-1108.
36. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199-208.
37. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873-884.
38. Chen J, Wong CK, McGhee SM, Pang PK, Yu WC. A Comparison between the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e112389.
39. van Stel HF, Buskens E. Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:20.
40. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271-292.
41. O'Brien BJ, Spath M, Blackhouse G, Severens JL, Dorian P, Brazier J. A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Econ. 2003;12(11):975-981.
42. Howell ER. The association between neck pain, theNeckDisability Index and cervical ranges of motion: a narrative review. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2011;55(3):211-221.
43. Pool JJ, Ostelo RW, Hoving JL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Minimal clinically important change of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for patients with neck pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(26):3047-3051.
44. Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14(7):409-415.
45. Carreon LY, Anderson PA, McDonough CM, Djurasovic M, Glassman SD. Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the neck disability index and numeric rating scales for neck and arm pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(6):490-494.