Top

Published in:

01-02-2017 | Original Article

A comparison between different outcome measures based on “meaningful important differences” in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 2/2017

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) are used to measure treatment efficacy in clinical trials. The impact of the choice of a PROM and the cut-off values for ‘meaningful important differences’ (MID) on the study results in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is unclear.

Objective

The objective is to study the consequences of applying different PROMs and values for MID for pain and disability on the proportions of patients with improvement.

Design

Prospective multi-center cohort study.

Methods

Proportions of patients with improvement using established MID cut-off values were calculated and compared for PROMs for pain and disability.

Results

466 patients with LSS completed a baseline and 6-month follow-up assessment and were analyzed. Treatment modalities included surgery (65 %), epidural steroid injections (15 %), or conservative care (20 %). The prevalence of patients fulfilling the criteria for MID ranged from 40 to 70 % across all outcome measures and cut-offs. The agreement of the spinal stenosis outcome measure (SSM) symptom subscale with other pain scales, and the SSM function subscale with other function scales was fair to moderate (Cohen’s κ value between 0.24 and 0.5). Disagreement in the assessment of MID (MID reported by patients in one scale but not the other) was found in at least one-third of the patients.

Conclusion

The MID in outcome scores for this population varied from 40 to 70 %, depending on the measure or cut-off score used. Further, the disagreement between domain specific measures indicates that differences between studies may be also related to the choice of an outcome measures. An international consensus on the use and reporting of outcome measures in studies on lumbar spinal stenosis is needed.

Available only for authorised users

Barrett B, Brown D, Mundt M, Brown R (2005) Sufficiently important difference: expanding the framework of clinical significance. Med Decis Making 25:250–261. doi:10.1177/0272989X05276863 CrossRefPubMed

Stucki G, Daltroy L, Liang MH, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Katz JN (1996) Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:796–803CrossRef

Cleland J, Whitman J, Houser J, Wainner R, Childs J (2012) Psychometric properties of selected tests in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. The spine journal 12:921–931CrossRefPubMed

Pratt RK, Fairbank JC, Virr A (2002) The reliability of the Shuttle Walking Test, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, the Oxford Spinal Stenosis Score, and the Oswestry Disability Index in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:84–91CrossRef

Sekiguchi M, Wakita T, Otani K, Onishi Y, Fukuhara S, Kikuchi S, Konno S (2012) Development and validation of a symptom scale for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:232–239. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318216afb4 CrossRef

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

Steurer J, Nydegger A, Held U, Brunner F, Hodler J, Porchet F, Min K, Mannion AF, Michel B (2010) LumbSten: the lumbar spinal stenosis outcome study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:254. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-11-254 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

World Medical Assembly (WMA) (2006) WMA Declaration of Helsinki-Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Adopted by the 18th WMA general assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964 and amended by the 64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/30ethicsmanual/index.html

Fokter SK, Yerby SA (2006) Patient-based outcomes for the operative treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 15:1661–1669. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0033-4 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Thornes E, Grotle M (2008) Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian version of the spinal stenosis measure. Eur Spine J 17:456–462. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0576-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Wertli MM, Steurer J, Wildi LM, Held U (2014) Cross-cultural adaptation of the German version of the spinal stenosis measure. Eur Spine J 23:1309–1319. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3245-7 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA (1978) Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis 37:378–381. doi:10.1136/ard.37.4.378 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Kremer E, Atkinson JH, Ignelzi RJ (1981) Measurement of pain: patient preference does not confound pain measurement. Pain 10:241–248CrossRefPubMed

14.

Choinière M, Amsel R (1996) A visual analogue thermometer for measuring pain intensity. J Pain Symptom Manag 11:299–311CrossRef

15.

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 (Philadelphia, Pa 1976) 8:141–144CrossRef

16.

Exner V, Keel P (2000) Measuring disability of patients with low-back pain—validation of a German version of the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire. Schmerz 14:392–400CrossRefPubMed

17.

Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2008) Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:90–94. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10 CrossRef

18.

Friedly JL, Comstock BA, Turner JA, Heagerty PJ, Deyo RA, Sullivan SD, Bauer Z, Bresnahan BW, Avins AL, Nedeljkovic SS, Nerenz DR, Standaert C, Kessler L, Akuthota V, Annaswamy T, Chen A, Diehn F, Firtch W, Gerges FJ, Gilligan C, Goldberg H, Kennedy DJ, Mandel S, Tyburski M, Sanders W, Sibell D, Smuck M, Wasan A, Won L, Jarvik JG (2014) A randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 371:11–21. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1313265 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Minamide A, Yoshida M, Yamada H, Nakagawa Y, Hashizume H, Iwasaki H, Tsutsui S (2015) Clinical outcomes after microendoscopic laminotomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a 5-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J 24:396–403. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3599-x CrossRefPubMed

20.

Roland M, Fairbank J (2000) The Roland–Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3115–3124CrossRef

21.

Viera AJ, Garrett JM (2005) Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 37:360–363PubMed

22.

Sim J, Wright CC (2005) The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther 85:257–268PubMed

23.

Vach W (2005) The dependence of Cohen’s kappa on the prevalence does not matter. J Clin Epidemiol 58:655–661. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.02.021 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Core Team R (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In: Core Team R (ed) R Foundation for statistical computing. R Core Team, Vienna

25.

Parker SL, Adogwa O, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Anderson WN, Cheng JS, Devin CJ, McGirt MJ (2012) Determination of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in pain, disability, and quality of life after revision fusion for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. Spine J 12:1122–1128. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.006 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Munting E, Roder C, Sobottke R, Dietrich D, Aghayev E, Spine Tango C (2015) Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry. Eur Spine J 24:358–368. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3349-0 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Mannion AF, Fekete TF, Wertli MM, Mattle M, Nauer S, Kleinstuck FS, Jeszenszky D, Haschtmann D, Becker HJ, Porchet F, Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Outcome Study Group (2015) Could less be more when assessing patient-rated outcome in spinal stenosis? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:710–718. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000751 CrossRef

28.

Machado GC, Ferreira PH, Harris IA, Pinheiro MB, Koes BW, van Tulder M, Rzewuska M, Maher CG, Ferreira ML (2015) Effectiveness of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10:e0122800. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122800 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Pincus T, Santos R, Breen A, Burton AK, Underwood M, Multinational Musculoskeletal Inception Cohort Study Collaboration (2008) A review and proposal for a core set of factors for prospective cohorts in low back pain: a consensus statement. Arthritis Rheum 59:14–24. doi:10.1002/art.23251 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Burgstaller JM, Porchet F, Steurer J, Wertli MM (2015) Arguments for the choice of surgical treatments in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis—a systematic appraisal of randomized controlled trials. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:96. doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0548-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Gum JL, Glassman SD, Carreon LY (2013) Clinically important deterioration in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery: a choice of evaluation methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and pain scales: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 19:564–568. doi:10.3171/2013.8.spine12804 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Lurie JD, Spratt KF, Blood EA, Tosteson TD, Tosteson AN, Weinstein JN (2011) Effects of viewing an evidence-based video decision aid on patients’ treatment preferences for spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:1501–1504. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182055c1e CrossRef

33.

Stacey D, Legare F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, Trevena L, Wu JH (2014) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:Cd001431. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4

Title: A comparison between different outcome measures based on “meaningful important differences” in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis
Publication date: 01-02-2017
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4587-0

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

A comparison between different outcome measures based on “meaningful important differences” in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

Abstract

Purpose

Objective

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Objective

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Dimensional changes of cervical and lumbar bony spinal canals in one generation in Western Switzerland: a computed tomography study

Does surgical technique influence clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis decompression? A comparative effectiveness study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery

Only walking matters—assessment following lumbar stenosis decompression

Determinants of patient satisfaction after surgery for central spinal stenosis without concomitant spondylolisthesis: a register study of 5100 patients

A novel MRI classification system for congenital functional lumbar spinal stenosis predicts the risk for tandem cervical spinal stenosis

Cost-effectiveness of conservative versus surgical treatment strategies of lumbar spinal stenosis in the Swiss setting: analysis of the prospective multicenter Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS)