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 2/2015

01-04-2015 | Review Article

A summary of assessment tools for patients suffering from cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review on validity, reliability and responsiveness

Authors: Anoushka Singh, Lindsay Tetreault, Adrian Casey, Rodney Laing, Patrick Statham, Michael G. Fehlings

Published in: European Spine Journal | Special Issue 2/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

One of the objectives of this review is to summarize the important features of a good scale. A second aim is to conduct a systematic review to identify scales that can detect the presence of cervical myelopathy and to determine their psychometric properties including validity, reliability and responsiveness.

Methods

A thorough literature search was performed using MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Articles were included in this study if they compared scale measurements between a control and a myelopathic patient population or if they discussed any psychometric property of a scale.

Results

An ideal scale should be one that is quantifiable, valid, sensitive, responsive and easy to perform, has high inter/intra-rater reliability, internal consistency and a suitable distribution, and is one-dimensional and relevant. In the context of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, it is essential that the scale also addresses the pathophysiology, its key signs and symptoms as well as its natural history. For the systematic review, the search yielded 5,745 citations. Of these, 37 met inclusion criteria, 10 explored the ability of a scale to detect myelopathy, 23 examined validity by assessing correlation between scales, 10 reported reliability, 8 analyzed responsiveness, and 6 discussed internal consistency. The most frequently reported scale was short form-36 (n = 16) followed by Nurick grade (n = 14), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (n = 13), (modified) Japanese Orthopaedic Association (n = 7) and grip and release test (n = 6). Four studies each presented results on the Cooper, Harsh and 30-m walking test.

Conclusion

This review summarizes outcome measures used to assess the presence and severity of cervical myelopathy. It includes several validation studies as well as those that have reported the responsiveness and reliability of various measures.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Nurick S (1972) The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 95:87–100CrossRefPubMed
4.
Matz PG, Anderson PA, Holly LT, Groff MW, Heary RF, Kaiser MG, Mummaneni PV, Ryken TC, Choudhri TF, Vresilovic EJ, Resnick DK (2009) The natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 11:104–111. doi:10.​3171/​2009.​1.​spine08716 CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Kaminsky SB, Clark CR, Traynelis VC (2004) Operative treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy. A comparison of laminectomy and laminoplasty at five year average follow-up. Iowa Orthop J 24:95–105PubMedCentralPubMed
7.
8.
Papadopoulos CA, Katonis P, Papagelopoulos PJ, Karampekios S, Hadjipavlou AG (2004) Surgical decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: correlation between operative outcomes and MRI of the spinal cord. Orthopedics 27:1087–1091PubMed
9.
10.
Mummaneni PV, Kaiser MG, Matz PG, Anderson PA, Groff MW, Heary RF, Holly LT, Ryken TC, Choudhri TF, Vresilovic EJ, Resnick DK (2009) Cervical surgical techniques for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 11:130–141. doi:10.​3171/​2009.​3.​spine08728 CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
13.
Allen KL (1952) Neuropathies caused by bony spurs in the cervical spine with special reference to surgical treatment. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 15:20–36CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
14.
Bakay L, Cares HL, Smith RJ (1970) Ossification in the region of the posterior longitudinal ligament as a cause of cervical myelopathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 33:263–268CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
15.
Ranawat CS, O’’eary P, Pellicci P, Tsairis P, Marchisello P, Dorr L (1979) Cervical spine fusion in rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 61:1003–1010PubMed
16.
Steinbrocker O, Traeger CH, Batterman RC (1949) Therapeutic criteria in rheumatoid arthritis. J Am Med Assoc 140:659–662CrossRefPubMed
17.
Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y (1983) Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8:693–699
18.
19.
Holly LT, Matz PG, Anderson PA, Groff MW, Heary RF, Kaiser MG, Mummaneni PV, Ryken TC, Choudhri TF, Vresilovic EJ, Resnick DK (2009) Clinical prognostic indicators of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 11:112–118. doi:10.​3171/​2009.​1.​spine08718 CrossRefPubMed
20.
Singh A, Crockard HA (2001) Comparison of seven different scales used to quantify severity of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and post-operative improvement. J Outcome Meas 5:798–818PubMed
21.
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMed
22.
Wade DT (1992) Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol Neurosurg 5:682–686PubMed
23.
Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL (1991) Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12:142S–158SCrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
26.
Ogino H, Tada K, Okada K, Yonenobu K, Yamamoto T, Ono K, Namiki H (1983) Canal diameter, anteroposterior compression ratio, and spondylotic myelopathy of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8:1–15
27.
28.
29.
Brain WR, Northfield D, Wilkinson M (1952) The neurological manifestations of cervical spondylosis. Brain 75:187–225CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
Hunt WE (1980) Cervical spondylosis: natural history and rare indications for surgical decompression. Clin Neurosurg 27:466–480PubMed
32.
33.
Clarke E, Robinson PK (1956) Cervical myelopathy: a complication of cervical spondylosis. Brain 79:483–510CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Hosono N, Sakaura H, Mukai Y, Kaito T, Makino T, Yoshikawa H (2008) A simple performance test for quantifying the severity of cervical myelopathy [Erratum appears in J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Nov; 90(11):1534]. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:1210–1213. doi:10.​1302/​0301-620X.​90B9.​20459
36.
37.
Yukawa Y, Kato F, Ito K, Horie Y, Nakashima H, Masaaki M, Ito ZY, Wakao N (2009) "Ten second step test" as a new quantifiable parameter of cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:82–86. doi:10.​1097/​BRS.​0b013e31818e2b19​
38.
Numasawa T, Ono A, Wada K, Yamasaki Y, Yokoyama T, Aburakawa S, Takeuchi K, Kumagai G, Kudo H, Umeda T, Nakaji S, Toh S (2012) Simple foot tapping test as a quantitative objective assessment of cervical myelopathy. Spine 37:108–113. doi:10.​1097/​BRS.​0b013e31821041f8​
39.
Maezawa Y, Uchida K, Baba H (2001) Gait analysis of spastic walking in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy. J Orthop Sci 6:378–384CrossRefPubMed
40.
Kuhtz-Buschbeck JP, Johnk K, Mader S, Stolze H, Mehdorn M (1999) Analysis of gait in cervical myelopathy. Gait Posture 9:184–189CrossRefPubMed
41.
Olindo S, Signate A, Richech A, Cabre P, Catonne Y, Smadja D, Pascal-Mousselard H (2008) Quantitative assessment of hand disability by the Nine-Hole-Peg test (9-HPT) in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 79:965–967. doi:10.​1136/​jnnp.​2007.​140285
42.
King Jr JT, McGinnis KA, Roberts MS (2003) Quality of life assessment with the medical outcomes study short form-36 among patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurgery 52:113–120 (discussion 121)
43.
Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O’’athain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L (1992) Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 305:160–164CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
44.
Thakar S, Christopher S, Rajshekhar V (2009) Quality of life assessment after central corpectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: comparative evaluation of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-Bref. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 11:402–412. doi:10.​3171/​2009.​4.​SPINE08749
45.
King JT Jr, Roberts MS (2002) Validity and reliability of the Short Form-36 in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg 97:180–185PubMed
46.
47.
Latimer M, Haden N, Seeley HM, Laing RJ (2002) Measurement of outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated surgically. Br J Neurosurg 16:545–549CrossRefPubMed
48.
Guilfoyle MR, Seeley H, Laing RJ (2009) The Short Form 36 health survey in spine disease—validation against condition-specific measures. Br J Neurosurg 23:401–405. doi:10.​1080/​0268869090273073​1
49.
Singh A, Gnanalingham K, Casey A, Crockard A (2006) Quality of life assessment using the Short Form-12 (SF-12) questionnaire in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: comparison with SF-36. Spine 31:639–643. doi:10.​1097/​01.​brs.​0000202744.​48633.​44
50.
King JT Jr, Tsevat J, Moossy JJ, Roberts MS (2004) Preference-based quality of life measurement in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 29:1271–1280CrossRefPubMed
51.
Nikaido T, Kikuchi S-I, Yabuki S, Otani K, Konno S-I (2009) Surgical treatment assessment using the Japanese orthopedic association cervical myelopathy evaluation questionnaire in patients with cervical myelopathy: a new outcome measure for cervical myelopathy. Spine 34:2568–2572CrossRefPubMed
52.
Stoll T, Huber E, Bachmann S, Baumeler HR, 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) 29:2851–2855
53.
54.
55.
56.
Casey AT, Bland JM, Crockard HA (1996) Development of a functional scoring system for rheumatoid arthritis patients with cervical myelopathy. Ann Rheum Dis 55:901–906CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
57.
Riddle DL, Stratford PW (1998) Use of generic versus region-specific functional status measures on patients with cervical spine disorders. Phys Ther 78:951–963PubMed
58.
Young IA, Cleland JA, Michener LA, Brown C (2010) 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 89:831–839. doi:10.​1097/​PHM.​0b013e3181ec98e6​ CrossRefPubMed
59.
Yonenobu K, Abumi K, Nagata K, Taketomi E, Ueyama K (2001) Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the Japanese orthopaedic association scoring system for evaluation of cervical compression myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:1890–1894 (discussion 1895)
60.
Bartels RH, Verbeek AL, Benzel EC, Fehlings MG, Guiot BH (2010) Validation of a translated version of the modified Japanese orthopaedic association score to assess outcomes in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: an approach to globalize outcomes assessment tools. Neurosurgery 66:1013–1016. doi:10.​1227/​01.​neu.​0000368391.​79314.​6f CrossRefPubMed
61.
Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Ito K, Machino M, Kanbara S, Morita D, Imagama S, Hamajima N, Ishiguro N, Kato F (2011) Validity of the 10-s step test: prospective study comparing it with the 10-s grip and release test and the 30-m walking test. Eur Spine J 20:1318–1322. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-011-1733-6 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
62.
63.
64.
Bolton JE (2004) Sensitivity and specificity of outcome measures in patients with neck pain: detecting clinically significant improvement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2410–2417 (discussion 2418)
65.
Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Whitman JM, Palmer JA (2006) The reliability and construct validity of the neck disability index and patient specific functional scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:598–602. doi:10.​1097/​01.​brs.​0000201241.​90914.​22
66.
Fehlings MG WJ, Kopjar B, Yoon S, Arnold P, Massicotte EMM, Vaccaro A, Brodke DS, Shaffrey C, Smith JS, Woodward E, Banco RJ, Chapman J, Janssen M, Bono C, Sasso R, Dekutoski M, Gokaslan ZL (2013) Efficacy and safety of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America multi-centre study. J Bone Joint Surg (in press)
67.
Singh A, Gnanalingham KK, Casey AT, Crockard A (2005) Use of quantitative assessment scales in cervical spondylotic myelopathy—survey of clinician’’ attitudes. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 147:1235–1238. doi:10.​1007/​s00701-005-0639-7
68.
Tetreault LA, Karpova A, Fehlings MG (2013) Predictors of outcome in patients with degenerative cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: results of a systematic review. Eur Spine J. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-013-2658-z
69.
Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Ito K, Machino M, Kanbara S, Morita D, Takahashi H, Imagama S, Ito Z, Ishiguro N, Kato F (2012) Prediction of lower limb functional recovery after laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy: focusing on the 10-s step test. Eur Spine J 21:1389–1395. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-012-2241-z
70.
King JT Jr, Moossy JJ, Tsevat J, Roberts MS (2005) Multimodal assessment after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2:526–534CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A summary of assessment tools for patients suffering from cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review on validity, reliability and responsiveness
Authors
Anoushka Singh
Lindsay Tetreault
Adrian Casey
Rodney Laing
Patrick Statham
Michael G. Fehlings
Publication date
01-04-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue Special Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2935-x

Other articles of this Special Issue 2/2015

European Spine Journal 2/2015 Go to the issue

Original Article

Long-term follow-up of clinical and radiological outcome after cervical laminectomy

Review article

Pathobiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Editorial

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: an update

Review Article

Cervical laminectomy and instrumented lateral mass fusion: techniques, pearls and pitfalls

Abstracts

Abstracts for the CSRS-es Annual Meeting in Bordeaux 2013

Review Article

Risk factors for development of myelopathy in patients with cervical spondylotic cord compression