The minimum clinically important difference in SRS-22R total score, appearance, activity and pain domains after surgical treatment of adult spinal deformity

Spine

Volumn 40, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 377-381

  Crawford, Charles H ^a   Glassman, Steven D ^b   Bridwell, Keith H ^c   Berven, Sigurd H ^d   Carreon, Leah Y ^a  

^a NORTON LEATHERMAN SPINE CENTER   (United States)

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

^c WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

adult deformity; MCID; outcomes; SRS 22R; surgical correction

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSESSMENT OF HUMANS; BODY MASS; COHORT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PAIN ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCOLIOSIS RESEARCH SOCIETY 22R SCORE; SMOKING; SPINE MALFORMATION; AGED; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; REFERENCE VALUE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPINAL CURVATURES;

ADULT; AGED; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REFERENCE VALUES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPINAL CURVATURES;

EID: 84942569492     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000761     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Baldus C, Bridwell KH, Harrast J, Age-gender matched comparison of SRS instrument scores between adult deformity and normal adults: are all SRS domains disease specific? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008; 33: 2214-8.
2. Berven S, Deviren V, Demir-Deviren S, Studies in the modified Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Instrument in adults: validation, reliability, and discriminatory capacity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28: 2164-9.
3. Bridwell KH, Berven S, Glassman S, Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32: 2220-5.
4. Bridwell KH, Cats-Baril W, Harrast J, The validity of the SRS-22 instrument in an adult spinal deformity population compared with the Oswestry and SF-12: a study of response distribution, concurrent validity, internal consistency, and reliability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 455-61.
5. Bridwell KH, Glassman S, Horton W, Does treatment (nonoperative and operative) improve the two-year quality of life in patients with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis: a prospective multicenter evidence-based medicine study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34: 2171-8.
6. Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A,. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2003; 12: 12-20.
7. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH,. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407-15.
8. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 400-5.
9. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods [published online ahead of print April 2, 2007]. Spine J 2007; 7: 541-6.
10. Hays RD, Woolley JM,. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in Health-related Quality-of-Life research. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18: 419-23.
11. Wells G, Beaton DE, Shea B, Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 406-12.
12. Berven SH, Deviren D, Hu S, Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Adult Spinal Deformity: How Much Change Is Significant? Paper presented at: International Meeting for Advanced Spine Techniques (IMAST); 2005; Banff, Canada.
13. International Spine Study Group, McCarthy I, Bess RS, Calculating and defining minimally important clinical difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) values for adult spinal deformity (ASD): a robust methodology for consistent data reporting. Spine J 2013; 13: 75S.
14. Asher MA, Lai SM, Glattes RC, Refinement of the SRS-22 Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire Function domain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31: 593-7.
15. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, The reliability and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2003; 28: 63-9.
16. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, Discrimination validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine 2003; 28: 74-8.
17. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine 2003; 28: 70-3.
18. SRS-30 Patient Questionnaire/Score Sheet [Scoliosis Research Society web site]. Available at: http://srs.org/professionals/outcomes/srs-30-score-sheet.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2014.
19. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S,. Applied Logistic Regression. New York, NY: Wiley Inc.: 2000.
20. Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 1999; 37: 469-78.
21. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky F,. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 861-73.
22. Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M, The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 appearance, activity, and pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2010; 35: 2079-83.
23. Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 1839-47.