Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-01-2012 | Original Article

Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck

Authors: C. D. Fankhauser, U. Mutter, E. Aghayev, A. F. Mannion

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 1/2012

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-orientated outcome questionnaires are essential to evaluate treatment success. To compare different treatments, hospitals, and surgeons, standardised questionnaires are required. The present study examined the validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measurement Index for neck pain (COMI-neck), a short, multidimensional outcome instrument.

Methods

Questionnaires were completed by patients with degenerative problems of the cervical spine undergoing cervical disc arthroplasty before (N = 89) and 3 months after (N = 75) surgery. The questionnaires comprised the EuroQol-Five Dimension (EQ-5D), the North American Spine Society Cervical Spine Outcome Assessment Instrument (NASS-cervical) and the COMI-neck.

Results

The COMI and NASS-cervical scores displayed no notable floor or ceiling effects at any time point whereas for the EQ-5D, the highest or lowest values were reached in around 32.5% of patients at follow-up. With one exception (symptom-specific well-being), the individual COMI items and the COMI summary score correlated to the expected extent (R = 0.4–0.8) with the scores of the chosen reference questionnaires. The area under the curve (AUC) generated by ROC analysis was significantly higher for the COMI (0.96) than for any other instrument/subscale when self reported treatment outcome was used as the external criterion, dichotomised as “good” (operation helped a lot/helped) versus “poor” (operation helped only a little/didn’t help/made things worse). The COMI had a high effect size (standardised response mean; SRM) (2.34) for the good global outcome group and a low SRM for the poor outcome group (0.34). The EQ-5D and the NASS-cervical lacked this ability to differentiate between the two groups, showing less distinct SRMs for good and poor outcome groups.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence that the COMI-neck is a valid and responsive questionnaire in the population of patients examined. Further investigations should examine its applicability in other patient groups with less severe neck pain or undergoing other treatment modalities.

Fejer R, Kyvik K, Hartvigsen J (2006) The prevalence of neck pain in the world population: a systematic critical review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15:834–848PubMedCrossRef

Borghouts J, Koes B, Vondeling H, Bouter L (1999) Cost-of-illness of neck pain in The Netherlands in 1996. Pain 80:629–636PubMedCrossRef

Bombardier C (2000) Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3100–3103CrossRef

Strömqvist B (2002) Evidence-based lumbar spine surgery. The role of national registration. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 73:34–39PubMed

Block A, Ohnmeiss D, Guyer R, Rashbaum R, Hochschuler S (2001) The use of presurgical psychological screening to predict the outcome of spine surgery. Spine J 1:274–282PubMedCrossRef

Carragee E (2001) Psychological screening in the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Clin J Pain 17:215–219PubMedCrossRef

Junge A, Dvorak J, Ahrens S (1995) Predictors of bad and good outcomes of lumbar disc surgery. A prospective clinical study with recommendations for screening to avoid bad outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:460–468CrossRef

Grob D, Porchet F, Kleinstück F, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Luca A, Mutter U, Mannion A (2010) A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects. Eur Spine J 19:297–306PubMedCrossRef

Mannion A, Junge A, Elfering A, Dvorak J, Porchet F, Grob D (2009) Great expectations: really the novel predictor of outcome after spinal surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1590–1599CrossRef

10.

Ahn H, Bhandari M, Schemitsch E (2009) An evidence-based approach to the adoption of new technology. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 3):95–98PubMedCrossRef

11.

Anderson P, Sasso R, Rouleau J, Carlson C, Goffin J (2004) The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 4:303S–309SPubMedCrossRef

12.

Deyo R (1988) Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 69:1044–1053PubMed

13.

Bowling A (2005) Just one question: if one question works, why ask several? J Epidemiol Community Health 59:342–345PubMedCrossRef

14.

Deyo R, Battie M, Beurskens A, 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 23:2003–2013CrossRef

15.

Mannion A, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer N, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026PubMedCrossRef

16.

Ferrer M, Pellisé F, Escudero O, Alvarez L, Pont A, Alonso J, Deyo R (2006) Validation of a minimum outcome core set in the evaluation of patients with back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1372–1379 discussion 1380CrossRef

17.

Melloh M, Staub L, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Barz T, Theis J, Chavanne A, Grob D, Aebi M, Roeder C (2008) The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results. Eur Spine J 17:1201–1209PubMedCrossRef

18.

White P, Lewith G, Prescott P (2004) The core outcomes for neck pain: validation of a new outcome measure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1923–1930CrossRef

19.

Kirshner B, Guyatt G (1985) A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 38:27–36PubMedCrossRef

20.

Schluessmann E, Diel P, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Moulin P, Röder C, Group SR (2009) SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J 18:851–861PubMedCrossRef

21.

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

22.

Beaton DE, Schemitsch E (2003) Measures of health-related quality of life and physical function. Clin Orthop Relat Res 90–105.

23.

Mannion A, Porchet F, Kleinstück F, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) 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 18(Suppl 3):374–379PubMedCrossRef

24.

Brooks R (2003) The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective evidence from EuroQol BIOMED research programme. Kluwer, Dordrecht

25.

Prieto L, Sacristán JA (2004) What is the value of social values? The uselessness of assessing health-related quality of life through preference measures. BMC Med Res Methodol 4:10PubMedCrossRef

26.

AAOS/NASS/SRS/CSRS/ORA/ASIA/COSS outcomes data collection questionnaires (1998) Cervical spine—baseline questionnaire, March 1998, Version 2.0

27.

Stoll T, Huber E, Bachmann S, Baumeler H, Mariacher S, Rutz M, Schneider W, Spring H, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G, Steiner W (2004) Validity and sensitivity to change of the NASS questionnaire for patients with cervical spine disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2851–2855CrossRef

28.

Sangha O, Wildner M, Peters A (2000) Evaluation of the North American Spine Society Instrument for assessment of health status in patients with chronic backache. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 138:447–451PubMedCrossRef

29.

Daltroy L, Cats-Baril W, Katz J, Fossel A, Liang M (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:741–749CrossRef

30.

Andresen EM (2000) Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81:S15–S20PubMedCrossRef

31.

McHorney CA, Tarlov AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 4:293–307PubMedCrossRef

32.

Terwee C, Bot S, de Boer M, van der Windt D, Knol D, Dekker J, Bouter L, de Vet H (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42PubMedCrossRef

33.

Streiner DL, Norman GR (1995) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, Oxford

34.

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG (2001) A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 54:1204–1217PubMedCrossRef

35.

Beurskens A, de Vet H, Köke A (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76PubMedCrossRef

36.

Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

37.

Kazis L, Anderson J, Meenan R (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27:S178–S189PubMedCrossRef

38.

Zweig M, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39:561–577PubMed

39.

Youden W (1950) Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 3:32–35PubMedCrossRef

40.

Hyland M (2003) A brief guide to the selection of quality of life instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:24PubMedCrossRef

41.

Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR (1998) Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2:i–iv, 1–74

42.

Bolognese J, Schnitzer T, Ehrich E (2003) Response relationship of VAS and Likert scales in osteoarthritis efficacy measurement. Osteoarthr Cartil 11:499–507PubMedCrossRef

43.

Janssen MF, Birnie E, Haagsma JA, Bonsel GJ (2008) Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health 11:275–284PubMedCrossRef

44.

Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ (2008) Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods. Qual Life Res 17:463–473PubMedCrossRef

45.

Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S (2007) Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care 45:259–263PubMedCrossRef

46.

Deyo R, Diehr P, Patrick D (1991) Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12:142S–158SPubMedCrossRef

47.

Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Weinstein JN (2003) 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 28:607–615

48.

Fritzell P, Berg S, Borgström F, Tullberg T, Tropp H (2010) Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J

49.

Hyland M (1992) Selection of items and avoidance of bias in quality of life scales. Pharmacoeconomics 1:182–190PubMedCrossRef

50.

Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL (1993) Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 118:622–629PubMed

51.

Johnson JA, Coons SJ, Ergo A, Szava-Kovats G (1998) Valuation of EuroQOL (EQ-5D) health states in an adult US sample. Pharmacoeconomics 13:421–433PubMedCrossRef

52.

Bharmal M, Thomas J (2006) Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value Health 9:262–271PubMedCrossRef

53.

Cunillera O, Tresserras R, Rajmil L, Vilagut G, Brugulat P, Herdman M, Mompart A, Medina A, Pardo Y, Alonso J, Brazier J, Ferrer M (2010) Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Qual Life Res 19:853–864PubMedCrossRef

54.

Petrou S, Hockley C (2005) An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ 14:1169–1189PubMedCrossRef

55.

Tidermark J, Bergström G (2007) Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) in elderly patients with femoral neck fractures. Qual Life Res 16:321–330PubMedCrossRef

56.

Bombardier C, Hayden J, Beaton DE (2001) Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures. J Rheumatol 28:431–438PubMed

57.

Siepe CJ, Mayer HM (2009) Is the final outcome predictable following total lumbar disc replacement? Proceedings of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine, Miami, Florida, USA, 4–8 May 2009

58.

Campbell H, Rivero-Arias O, Johnston K, Gray A, Fairbank J, Frost H, Trial UMSS (2006) 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 31:815–822CrossRef

59.

Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH (1998) Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther 78:1186–1196PubMed

60.

MacKenzie CR, Charlson ME, DiGioia D, Kelley K (1986) Can the Sickness Impact Profile measure change? An example of scale assessment. J Chronic Dis 39:429–438PubMedCrossRef

61.

Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Gill C, Finch E (1994) Assessing change over time in patients with low back pain. Phys Ther 74:528–533PubMed

Title: Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck
Authors: C. D. Fankhauser
U. Mutter
E. Aghayev
A. F. Mannion
Publication date: 01-01-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 1/2012
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1921-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Erratum to: Adult de novo lumbar scoliosis. Posterior instrumented fusion with Smith-Peterson osteotomy, decompression and management of postoperative infection

Modified technique for C1–2 screw-rod fixation and fusion using autogenous bicortical iliac crest graft

Answer to the Letter to the Editor of Hamid Namazi concerning manuscript “Platelet-rich plasma in mono-segmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion”. Eur Spine J, 2011 Jul 10 [Epub ahead of print], by J. Sys 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

Initiation and progression of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine in the hereditary spinal hyperostotic mouse (twy/twy)