Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 125 items for :

  • "minimal clinically important difference" x
  • All content x
Clear All
Restricted access

Alvaro Ibaseta, Rafa Rahman, Nicholas S. Andrade, Richard L. Skolasky, Khaled M. Kebaish, Daniel M. Sciubba, and Brian J. Neuman

adequate measure of health status in patients with ASD, and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) (the smallest change in an outcome that would prompt a change in treatment) have not been reported. Therefore, we investigated the concurrent validity, discriminant ability, and responsiveness of PROMIS domains in ASD. We also estimated PROMIS MCIDs for this population. We hypothesized that legacy PROs would be correlated moderately or strongly with PROMIS, that PROMIS would be able to discriminate between levels of disease severity in ASD, and that PROMIS

Free access

Hideyuki Arima, Steven D. Glassman, Keith Bridwell, Yu Yamato, Mitsuru Yagi, Kota Watanabe, Morio Matsumoto, Satoshi Inami, Hiroshi Taneichi, Yukihiro Matsuyama, and Leah Y. Carreon

patients undergoing surgery, not only for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis but also for adult spinal deformity (ASD). 6–9 , 11 Generally, a statistically significant difference between PROs before and after surgery is interpreted as a measure of treatment effectiveness. However, the differences measured between these groups may not be clinically relevant to the individual patient. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest difference in a health-related quality of life (HRQOL) score that is considered to be worthwhile or clinically important to the

Free access

Nathan Evaniew, David W. Cadotte, Nicolas Dea, Christopher S. Bailey, Sean D. Christie, Charles G. Fisher, Jerome Paquet, Alex Soroceanu, Kenneth C. Thomas, Y. Raja Rampersaud, Neil A. Manson, Michael Johnson, Andrew Nataraj, Hamilton Hall, Greg McIntosh, and W. Bradley Jacobs

characteristics that affect treatment decision making and predict clinical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy . Spine (Phila Pa 1976 ) . 2013 ; 38 ( 22 )( suppl 1 ): S89 – S110 . 7 Tetreault L , Wilson JR , Kotter MRN , Predicting the minimum clinically important difference in patients undergoing surgery for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy . Neurosurg Focus . 2016 ; 40 ( 6 ): E14 . 8 Jaeschke R , Singer J , Guyatt GH . Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference . Control

Free access

Junseok Bae, Alexander A. Theologis, Russell Strom, Bobby Tay, Shane Burch, Sigurd Berven, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Dean Chou, Christopher P. Ames, and Vedat Deviren

), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and the Scoliosis Research Society 22-question Questionnaire (SRS-22). Two standard summary scores, the physical component summary (PCS) and the mental component summary (MCS), were based on the SF-36. 30 The SRS-22 provided a total score and scores on 5 subdomains, including pain, function, self-image, mental health, and satisfaction. To place HRQoL outcomes in a clinically relevant context, values for minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) have been established. In this study, MCIDs were defined as the

Full access

Joshua Bakhsheshian, Justin K. Scheer, Jeffrey L. Gum, Richard Hostin, Virginie Lafage, Shay Bess, Themistocles S. Protopsaltis, Douglas C. Burton, Malla Kate Keefe, Robert A. Hart, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Christopher I. Shaffrey, Frank Schwab, Justin S. Smith, Christopher P. Ames, and The International Spine Study Group

events during hospitalization after spine surgery. 15 However, other investigations have failed to demonstrate an association between self-reported psychological conditions and outcome scores following lumbar spine surgery. 1 , 13 Of note, these studies did not have predefined comparative study groups, meaning that they did not classify patients with significant functional impairment as scoring at or below the 25th percentile for age- and sex-matched US population norms. 20 Further, the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) were not evaluated. To date

Restricted access

Hesham Mostafa Zakaria, Tarek R. Mansour, Edvin Telemi, Karam Asmaro, Mohamed Macki, Michael Bazydlo, Lonni Schultz, David R. Nerenz, Muwaffak Abdulhak, Jason M. Schwalb, Paul Park, and Victor Chang

quality is being given to lumbar fusion surgery, as this procedure is associated with high costs 3 , 23 and inconsistent efficacy. 15 , 17 While “quality” care is abstract, “good quality” is generally associated with decreased morbidity and costs, together with an increased likelihood of postoperative improvement in pain, as measured by minimal clinically important difference (MCID) scores and a return to work. As such, there is an increased focus on identifying patient preoperative factors that can predict these outcomes, especially after lumbar fusion. 4 , 18 , 27

Full access

Alexander A. Theologis, Tamir Ailon, Justin K. Scheer, Justin S. Smith, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Shay Bess, Munish Gupta, Eric O. Klineberg, Khaled Kebaish, Frank Schwab, Virginie Lafage, Douglas Burton, Robert Hart, Christopher P. Ames, and The International Spine Study Group

achieving ≥ 1 minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on the ODI (12.8) 13 versus not. Model building followed the same principles outlined above. From this model, probit regression was used to determine the predicted likelihood of reaching ≥ 1 MCID on the ODI based on the patients’ baseline MSPQ score, adjusted for potential confounders. Results Demographics Of the 1254 consecutive patients with ASD who were offered enrollment at all participating institutions, 608 were enrolled. Of the 608 patients who were enrolled, 365 were eligible for 2-year follow

Free access

Anna MacDowall, Robert F. Heary, Marek Holy, Lars Lindhagen, and Claes Olerud

into a percentage (range 0%–100%). 19 The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in NDI has been reported to be 15%–17% 3 , 19 , 31 with a standard deviation of 17%. 12 Secondary outcomes were the EQ-5D (ranging from −0.5 to 1, with higher scores reflecting a better quality of life), EQ-5D health (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health), and VAS for neck and arm pain 14 (ranging from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating more severe pain). The MCID is 0.24 for EQ-5D 19 and 2.5 for VAS of the neck and arm. 3 Study Oversight

Restricted access

Ulrike Held, Johann Steurer, Giuseppe Pichierri, Maria M. Wertli, Mazda Farshad, Florian Brunner, Roman Guggenberger, François Porchet, Tamás F. Fekete, Urs D. Schmid, Isaac Gravestock, and Jakob M. Burgstaller

different studies on lumbar spinal stenosis. 17 , 19 , 36 , 40 It consists of 3 different subscales: the symptom severity subscale, the physical function subscale, and the satisfaction subscale. Score ranges are 1–5, 1–4, and 1–4 (best to worst), respectively. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in SSM symptoms is defined as an improvement (decrease) by at least 0.48 points. MCID in SSM function is defined as an improvement (decrease) by at least 0.52 points. 34 EQ-5D-3L The EQ-5D-3L is an assessment tool to measure health-related quality of life. It measures

Full access

Anthony L. Asher, Silky Chotai, Clinton J. Devin, Theodore Speroff, Frank E. Harrell Jr., Hui Nian, Robert S. Dittus, Praveen V. Mummaneni, John J. Knightly, Steven D. Glassman, Mohamad Bydon, Kristin R. Archer, Kevin T. Foley, and Matthew J. McGirt

visual analog scale . Ann Emerg Med 38 : 633 – 638 , 2001 24 Gatchel RJ , Mayer TG : Testing minimal clinically important difference: consensus or conundrum? . Spine J 10 : 321 – 327 , 2010 25 Ghogawala Z , Shaffrey CI , Asher AL , Heary RF , Logvinenko T , Malhotra NR , : The efficacy of lumbar discectomy and single-level fusion for spondylolisthesis: results from the NeuroPoint-SD registry: clinical article . J Neurosurg Spine 19 : 555 – 563 , 2013 26 Glassman SD , Copay AG , Berven SH , Polly DW , Subach BR