Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 1/2006

01-01-2006 | Review

Outcome assessment: recommendations for daily practice

Author: Charles G. Greenough

Published in: European Spine Journal | Special Issue 1/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

The choice of instruments for the assessment of outcome in spinal surgery is bewildering. For day-to-day practice, however, consideration of the purpose for which information is required allows construction of simple strategies for data collection. Recommendations are made for short and convenient data sets for use in personal audit, clinical governance, benchmarking, patient selection and business planning. No simple data set can measure in detail every aspect of practice, but use of these recommendations will provide information that will be of great value to the spinal surgeon and ultimately to his patients.
Literature
1.
Amick BC III, Lerner D, Rogers WH, Rooney T, Katz JN (2000) A review of health related work outcome measures and their uses, and recommended measures. Spine 25:3152–3160PubMedCrossRef
2.
Bombardier C (2000) Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine 25:3100–3103PubMedCrossRef
3.
Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJHM, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Von Korff M, Waddell G (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine 23:2003–2013PubMedCrossRef
4.
Elfering A (2005) Work-related outcome assessment instruments. Eur Spine J (in press)
5.
Euroquol-Group (1990) Euroquol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Pol 16:199–208CrossRef
6.
Fairbank J (1995) Use of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Spine 20–13:1535–1537CrossRef
7.
Greenough CG (1993) Recovery from low back pain. 1–5 year follow-up of 287 injury related cases. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica (Suppl). S254(vol 64):1–33
8.
Greenough CG, Fraser RD (1991) A comparison of eight psychometric instruments in low back pain. Spine 16:1068–1074PubMedCrossRef
9.
Greenough CG, Fraser RD (1992) Assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain. Spine 17–1:36–41CrossRef
10.
Haefeli M, Elfering A (2005) Pain assessment. Eur Spine J (in press)
11.
Hagg O, Fritzell P, Oden A et al (2002) Simplifying outcome measurement: evaluation of instruments for measuring outcome after fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. Spine 27:1213–1222PubMedCrossRef
12.
Hensing G, Alexanderson K, Allebeck P, Bjurulf P (1998) How to measure sickness absence? Literature review and suggestion of five basic measures. Scand J Soc Med 26:133–144PubMed
13.
Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer NK, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J (in press), published online: 4 June 2005
14.
Mannion A, Elfering A (2005) Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment. Eur Spine J (in press)
15.
Műller U, Rőder C, Greenough CG (2005) Back-related outcome assessment instruments. Eur Spine J (in press)
16.
Murray MM, Holmes M, Greenough CG (2002) Results of a spinal assessment clinic. J Bone Joint Surg 84B(Suppl II):144
17.
Németh G (2005) Health related quality of life outcome instruments. Eur Spine J (in press)
18.
Main CJ, Wood PLR, Hollis S, Spanswick CC, Waddell G (1992) The distress and risk assessment method a simple patient classification to identify distress and evaluate the risk of poor outcome. Spine 17:42–52PubMedCrossRef
19.
Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 8–2:141–144CrossRef
20.
Rosenstiel AK, Keefe FJ (1983) The use of coping strategies in chronic low back pain patients: relationship to patient characteristics and current adjustment. Pain 17:33–44PubMedCrossRef
21.
Schaeren S, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Knupp M, et al (2005) A computer touch-screen version of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument for the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:201–204PubMedCrossRef
22.
van Tulder M, Boos N (2005) Economic evaluations–a new avenue of outcome assessment in spinal disorders. Eur Spine J (in press)
23.
Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ (1993) A fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain 52:157–168PubMedCrossRef
24.
Ware JEJ, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30–36:473–483CrossRef
25.
Zigmond AS, Snaith RP (1983) The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta psychiatr scand 67:361–370PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Outcome assessment: recommendations for daily practice
Author
Charles G. Greenough
Publication date
01-01-2006
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue Special Issue 1/2006
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1056-6

Other articles of this Special Issue 1/2006

European Spine Journal 1/2006 Go to the issue

Original Article

A practical approach to spine registers in Europe: the Swedish experience

Review

Economic evaluations: a new avenue of outcome assessment in spinal disorders

Review

Work-related outcome assessment instruments

Review

Pain assessment

Review

Back related outcome assessment instruments

Review

Outcome of non-invasive treatment modalities on back pain: an evidence-based review