Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

Open Access 01-04-2020 | Leg Pain | ISSLS Prize

ISSLS prize in clinical science 2020: the reliability and interpretability of score change in lumbar spine research

Authors: C. Parai, O. Hägg, B. Lind, H. Brisby

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 4/2020

Abstract

Purpose

A statistically significant score change of a PROM (Patient-Reported Outcome Measure) can be questioned if it does not exceed the clinically Minimal Important Change (MIC) or the SDC (Smallest Detectable Change) of the particular measure. The aim of the study was to define the SDC of three common PROMs in degenerative lumbar spine surgery: Numeric Rating Scale (NRS_BACK/LEG), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Euroqol-5-Dimensions (EQ-5D_INDEX) and to compare them to their MICs. The transition questions Global Assessment (GA_BACK/LEG) were also explored.

Methods

Reliability analyses were performed on a test–retest population of 182 symptomatically stable patients, with similar characteristics as the Swespine registry population, who underwent surgery for degenerative lumbar spine conditions 2017–2018. The MIC values were based on the entire registry (n = 98,732) using the ROC curve method. The ICC for absolute agreement was calculated in a two-way random-effects single measures model. For categorical variables, weighted kappa and exact agreement were computed.

Results

For the NRS, the SDC exceeded the MIC (NRS_BACK:3.6 and 2.7; NRS_LEG: 3.7 and 3.2, respectively), while they were of an equal size of 18 for the ODI. The gap between the two estimates was remarkable in the EQ-5D_INDEX, where SDC was 0.49 and MIC was 0.10. The GA_BACK/LEG showed an excellent agreement between the test and the retest occasion.

Conclusion

For the tested PROM scores, the changes must be considerable in order to distinguish a true change from random error in degenerative lumbar spine surgery research.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Available only for authorised users

Chapman JR, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, Bransford RJ, DeVine J, McGirt MJ, Lee MJ (2011) Evaluating common outcomes for measuring treatment success for chronic low back pain. Spine 36(21 Suppl):S54–S68. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822ef74d CrossRefPubMed

Polit DF, Yang FM (2016) Measurement and the measurement of change: a primer for the health professions. Wolters Kluwer, Philadelphia

Chiarotto A, Terwee CB, Kamper SJ, Boers M, Ostelo RW (2018) Evidence on the measurement properties of health-related quality of life instruments is largely missing in patients with low back pain: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 102:23–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.006 CrossRefPubMed

Chiarotto A, Maxwell LJ, Ostelo RW, Boers M, Tugwell P, Terwee CB (2018) Measurement properties of visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and pain severity subscale of the brief pain inventory in patients with low back pain: a systematic review. J Pain Off J Am Pain Soc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2018.07.009 CrossRef

Chiarotto A, Maxwell LJ, Terwee CB, Wells GA, Tugwell P, Ostelo RW (2016) Roland-morris disability questionnaire and oswestry disability index: which has better measurement properties for measuring physical functioning in nonspecific low back pain? Syst Rev Meta Anal Phys Ther 96(10):1620–1637. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20150420 CrossRef

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil 19(4):539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 CrossRef

Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD (1999) Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 52(9):861–873CrossRef

Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V, Brooks P, Tugwell P (2001) Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 28(2):406–412PubMed

Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, Croft P, de Vet HC (2010) Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 63(5):524–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.010 CrossRefPubMed

10.

King MT (2011) A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 11(2):171–184. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.11.9 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J Off J N Am Spine Soc 7(5):541–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008 CrossRef

12.

Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G (1987) Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 40(2):171–178CrossRef

13.

Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Knol DL, De Boer MR, De Vet HC (2009) Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):1062–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.011 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Parai C, Hagg O, Lind B, Brisby H (2018) The value of patient global assessment in lumbar spine surgery: an evaluation based on more than 90,000 patients. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 27(3):554–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5331-0 CrossRef

15.

Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–483CrossRef

16.

Stromqvist B, Fritzell P, Hagg O, Jonsson B, Sanden B (2013) Swespine: the Swedish spine register: the 2012 report. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 22(4):953–974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2758-9 CrossRef

17.

Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The oswestry disability index. Spine 25(22):2940–2952 discussion 2952 CrossRef

18.

Group TE (1990) EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health policy 16(3):199–208CrossRef

19.

Parai C, Hagg O, Lind B, Brisby H (2019) Follow-up of degenerative lumbar spine surgery-PROMs stabilize after 1 year: an equivalence study based on Swespine data. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-05989-0 CrossRef

20.

Deyo RA, Centor RM (1986) Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39(11):897–906CrossRef

21.

Altman DG, Bland JM (1994) Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 309(6947):102. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102 CrossRef

22.

Cicchetti DV (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6(4):284CrossRef

23.

van der Roer N, Ostelo RW, Bekkering GE, van Tulder MW, de Vet HC (2006) Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine 31(5):578–582. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000201293.57439.47 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Coretti S, Ruggeri M, McNamee P (2014) The minimum clinically important difference for EQ-5D index: a critical review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 14(2):221–233. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2014.894462 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174CrossRef

Title: ISSLS prize in clinical science 2020: the reliability and interpretability of score change in lumbar spine research
Authors: C. Parai
O. Hägg
B. Lind
H. Brisby
Publication date: 01-04-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Leg Pain
Leg Pain
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06222-8

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

ISSLS prize in clinical science 2020: the reliability and interpretability of score change in lumbar spine research

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Graphic abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Graphic abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2020

Clinical results and functional outcomes after three-column osteotomy at L5 or the sacrum in adult spinal deformity

Spine slenderness and wedging in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and in asymptomatic population: an observational retrospective study

EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL MAX AEBI AWARD FOR CLINICAL SCIENCES 2018/2019

Announcements

Evaluation of a new sagittal classification system in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Impact of adult spinal deformity corrective surgery in patients with the symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a 5-year follow-up report