Minimum clinically important difference of major patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 196 ◽  
pp. 105966
Author(s):  
Yoji Ogura ◽  
Koichi Ogura ◽  
Yoshiomi Kobayashi ◽  
Takahiro Kitagawa ◽  
Yoshiro Yonezawa ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2_suppl2) ◽  
pp. 2325967117S0007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derya Çelik ◽  
Özge Çoban ◽  
Önder Kılıçoğlu

Purpose: MCID scores for outcome measures are frequently used evidence-based guides to gage meaningful changes. To conduct a systematic review of the quality and content of the the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) relating to 16 patient-rated outcome measures (PROM) used in lower extremity. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review on articles reporting MCID in lower extremity outcome measures and orthopedics from January 1, 1980, to May 10, 2016. We evaluated MCID of the 16 patient reported outcome measures (PROM) which were Harris Hip Score (HHS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC), The Lysholm Scale, The Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET), The Anterior Cruciate Ligament Quality of Life Questionnaire (ACL-QOL), The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), The Western Ontario and Mcmaster Universities Index (WOMAC), Knee İnjury And Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Kujala Anterior Knee Pain Scale, The Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment Patellar Tendinosis (Jumper’s Knee) (VİSA-P), Tegner Activity Rating Scale, Marx Activity Rating Scale, Foot And Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), The Foot Function Index (FFI), Foot And Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), The Foot And Ankle Disability Index Score and Sports Module, Achill Tendon Total Rupture Score(ATRS), The Victorian İnstitute Of Sports Assesment Achilles Questionnaire(VİSA-A), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS). A search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, PEDro and Cochrane Cen¬tral Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science databases from the date of inception to May 1, 2016 was conducted. The terms “minimal clinically important difference,” “minimal clinically important change”, “minimal clinically important improvement” “were combined with one of the PROM as mentioned above. Results: A total of 223 abstracts were reviewed and 119 articles chosen for full text review. Thirty articles were included in the final evaluation. The MCID was mostly calculated for WOMAC and frequently reported in knee and hip osteoartritis, knee and hip atrhroplasties, femoraasetabular impingement syndrome and focal cartilage degeneration. In addition, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was the most used method to report MCID. Conclusions: MCID is an important concept used to determine whether a medical intervention improves perceived outcomes in patients. Despite an abundance of methods reported in the literature, little work in MCID estimation has been done in the PRAM related to lower extremity. There is a need for future studies in this regard.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e028777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiukui Hao ◽  
Tahira Devji ◽  
Dena Zeraatkar ◽  
Yuting Wang ◽  
Anila Qasim ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo identify credible anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) relevant to aBMJRapid Recommendations addressing subacromial decompression surgery for shoulder pain.DesignSystematic review.Outcome measuresEstimates of anchor-based MIDs, and their credibility, for PROMs judged by the parallelBMJRapid Recommendations panel as important for informing their recommendation (pain, function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL)).Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO up to August 2018.Study selection and review methodsWe included original studies of any intervention for shoulder conditions reporting estimates of anchor-based MIDs for relevant PROMs. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria. Six reviewers, working in pairs, independently extracted data from eligible studies using a predesigned, standardised, pilot-tested extraction form and independently assessed the credibility of included studies using an MID credibility tool.ResultsWe identified 22 studies involving 5562 patients that reported 74 empirically estimated anchor-based MIDs for 10 candidate instruments to assess shoulder pain, function and HRQoL. We identified MIDs of high credibility for pain and function outcomes and of low credibility for HRQoL. We offered median estimates for the systematic review team who applied these MIDs in Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence summaries and in their interpretations of results in the linked systematic review addressing the effectiveness of surgery for shoulder pain.ConclusionsOur review provides anchor-based MID estimates, as well as a rating of their credibility, for PROMs for patients with shoulder conditions. The MID estimates inform the interpretation for a linked systematic review and guideline addressing subacromial decompression surgery for shoulder pain, and could also prove useful for authors addressing other interventions for shoulder problems.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018106531.


2020 ◽  
Vol 191 ◽  
pp. 105710
Author(s):  
Yoji Ogura ◽  
Yoshiomi Kobayashi ◽  
Takahiro Kitagawa ◽  
Yoshiro Yonezawa ◽  
Yoshiyuki Takahashi ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Galal Elsayed ◽  
Samuel G. McClugage ◽  
Matthew S. Erwood ◽  
Matthew C. Davis ◽  
Esther B. Dupépé ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVEInsurance disparities can have relevant effects on outcomes after elective lumbar spinal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between private/public payer status and patient-reported outcomes in adult patients who underwent decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.METHODSA sample of 100 patients who underwent surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis from 2012 to 2014 was evaluated as part of the prospectively collected Quality Outcomes Database at a single institution. Outcome measures were evaluated at 3 months and 12 months, analyzed in regard to payer status (private insurance vs Medicare/Veterans Affairs insurance), and adjusted for potential confounders.RESULTSAt baseline, patients had similar visual analog scale back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and EQ-5D scores. At 3 months postintervention, patients with government-funded insurance reported significantly worse quality of life (mean difference 0.11, p < 0.001) and more leg pain (mean difference 1.26, p = 0.05). At 12 months, patients with government-funded insurance reported significantly worse quality of life (mean difference 0.14, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences at 3 months or 12 months between groups for back pain (p = 0.14 and 0.43) or disability (p = 0.19 and 0.15). Across time points, patients in both groups showed improvement at 3 months and 12 months in all 4 functional outcomes compared with baseline (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSBoth private and public insurance patients had significant improvement after elective lumbar spinal surgery. Patients with public insurance had slightly less improvement in quality of life after surgery than those with private insurance but still benefited greatly from surgical intervention, particularly with respect to functional status.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document